Straif Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: Sing a song of Nazis.... You people make me retch. Lock this one up, please. It belongs in the bin, with all the neo-nazi filth that it seems to summon in. Sir, why are you calling people names? Whom are you calling "neo-nazi filth"? Could you explain why are you so pissed-off? People are discussing history of WWII, if you have any interesting information about the subject - say it. If not - relax and listen to others. If you don't like the subject, just close this window. Best wishes to you Straif 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 OZ77 April 29, 2003 07:34 AM: Yesterday my friend sent me an intresting article(11 pages) After reading it I was shocked I thik it is the summary of Suworov's book OZ77 April 30, 2003 12:52 AM: It took 9 book to Rezun to answer 10000 questions you could ask. Just read it and he will show you things you've never seen!! Well, I guess it didn't take you very long to read those 9989 pages that were left. Or was it in The Reader's Digest? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 OZ77, Ahh, so this was more of a troll, it seems. Oh well, the CM community has already discussed this issue in depth, and I believe the consensus was relatively unfavorable for Rezun and his fantastic version of reality. But, you are certainly free to try your hand at what amounts to little more than propaganda. As for myself, these undying arguments of a Nazi morale high ground, while once amusing, are actually now just tiresome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 How does that song go in the film "The Producers"? If I remember correctly it's something like....Springtime da da for Hitler de dum and Germany do de do... Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 My revisionist version of events 1939 – Polish army is discovered to be massing on German border. Plucky German intervention saves Western Europe from domination by evil Poles. Proof is that Poland fell so quickly, which could only have happened if they were planning to attack. 1940 – Danish army is discovered to be massing on German border. Plucky German intervention saves Western Europe from domination by evil Vikings. Proof is that Denmark fell so quickly, which could only have happened if they were planning to attack. To ensure no more Viking threat, Germans forced to intervene in Norway as well. Also in 1940, Germans liberate Dutch, Belgians, Luxemburgois, French from Churchill’s invasion plans. Britain had trained 1500000 clone stormtroopers like in the film, and had monster jet propelled flying battleships. British troops were ALREADY in France and were MASSED on Belgian border! 1941 Germany is threatened by invasion by evil communist soviets, so saves West Europe from communist domination by declaring war on Russia. Germany is then threatened by invasion by evil capitalist Americans, so saves East Europe from capitalist domination by declaring war on them too. Oh yes, the Yugoslavians and Greeks ask for German intervention to ward off Italian occupation. 1942 A quiet year, Europeans thank Germany for saving them. The rest of France decides that evil British attacks on their colonies can only be forestalled by asking for German intervention 1943 Germans save Italy from the Italians by intervening at Italian request, thereby saving Italy from Italian domination. 1944 Evil British, Canadian, Polish, American and French armies invade sovereign states of France/ Dutch/ Belgium without provocation. German troops spill much blood on behalf of their allies to ensure these nations' post war independence. We can thank them for ensuring that post war France was kept free for the French, Dutch are speaking Dutch, not English, and the Belgians are not part of the Polish Empire 1945 True glory of German plan is shown. Having saved half of Europe from the other half, Germany splits in two to ensure neither half of Europe can dominate the other half. Apart from Italians, who dominate themselves 1945-1989 Inspired by German selfless example of intervention to better others lives, and to ensure non domination by anyone, millions of oppressed peoples around the world throw off their colonial shackles, invent the Pill and the Beatles 1989-2003 Beatles split up. Germany reunites. Italians invent Euro Disco, showing the Germans were right about their evil intentions all along. [ April 30, 2003, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Wisbech_lad ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walpurgis nacht Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: Sing a song of Nazis.... You people make me retch. Lock this one up, please. It belongs in the bin, with all the neo-nazi filth that it seems to summon in. And how is it that you come to this conclusion soddball . . . nothing else for your petty little ego to indulge in? One of the first rules of being an academic is understanding that the pursuit of intellectual truth involves at least an *attempt* at objectivity. That means transcending presumptuous emotional whims, which you are obviously incapable of. As an amatuer historian I have found most of the posts, and the links extremely interesting. No one forced you to click on this thread . . . so run along now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Walpurgis Night: And how is it that you come to this conclusion soddball . . . nothing else for your petty little ego to indulge in? Gee, did someone piss in your cornflakes? One of the first rules of being an academic is understanding that the pursuit of intellectual truth involves at least an *attempt* at objectivity. That means transcending presumptuous emotional whims, which you are obviously incapable of. As an amatuer historian I have found most of the posts, and the links extremely interesting. Take a walk around Auschwitz and see how objective you feel then, Mr Amatuer (sic) Historian. What you see here is the thin end of the wedge for the Nazi apologists. Emotional freedom from their work is for physicists. Historians have to have an empathy for the people they're dealing with. No one forced you to click on this thread . . . so run along now. [/QB]No-one forced you to be so offensive, but you're doing a fine job. Pardon me if I don't revel in revisionist neo-nazi propaganda like you do. Edited to remove some of the bile - it's not worth it. Edited again to remove the bits that people were grizzling about. [ April 30, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishu Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> No one forced you to click on this thread . . . so run along now. No-one forced you to be such an offensive turd, but you're doing a fine job. Pardon me if I don't revel in revisionist neo-nazi propaganda like you do. [/QB]</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikko H. Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 This whole 'Barbarossa was preventive attack' -crowd reminds me of the creationist side in the evolution vs. creationism controversy. Both exhibit the same qualities, namely utter refusal to listen any arguments and proofs contrary their established opinion, conviction that the 'truth' is being covered up by 'them', belief they will get their point through by repeating the same discredited arguments again and again, ability to ignore all uncomfortable questions and just plain ignorance of the method how the science in question works. To argue with them is generally an exercise in futility, but it just has to be done, so that they can't claim victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brigadier Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Esteemed all, Let us take a breath and maintain a modicum of decorum. This Forum is far too intellectual and worldly to degenerate into a sniping affair, such as this. I implore you to revisit your sensibilities. Best Regards, Brig. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Mikko H.: This whole 'Barbarossa was preventive attack' -crowd reminds me of the creationist side in the evolution vs. creationism controversy. Both exhibit the same qualities, namely utter refusal to listen any arguments and proofs contrary their established opinion, conviction that the 'truth' is being covered up by 'them', belief they will get their point through by repeating the same discredited arguments again and again, ability to ignore all uncomfortable questions and just plain ignorance of the method how the science in question works. To argue with them is generally an exercise in futility, but it just has to be done, so that they can't claim victory. Yes, sort of reminds me of a more recent preventative attack. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Phosphorus Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Walpurgis Night: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball: Sing a song of Nazis.... You people make me retch. Lock this one up, please. It belongs in the bin, with all the neo-nazi filth that it seems to summon in. And how is it that you come to this conclusion soddball . . . nothing else for your petty little ego to indulge in? One of the first rules of being an academic is understanding that the pursuit of intellectual truth involves at least an *attempt* at objectivity. That means transcending presumptuous emotional whims, which you are obviously incapable of. As an amatuer historian I have found most of the posts, and the links extremely interesting. No one forced you to click on this thread . . . so run along now. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brigadier Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Gentlemen , gentlemen PLEASE. I implore you. Arguments posted are largely esoteric and open to conjecture.Kindly moderate remarks to known basis, or discontinue your argument forthwith. Best Regards, Brig. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Found this in another forum thread, which made me chuckle at the sweet riposte Moreover, >there is a credible theory >that Germany was actually >forced to attack the Soviet >Union because Stalin was >planning a massive invasion of >Western Europe. There may be such an hypothesis - it certainly doesn't deserve to be called a theory. It's perhaps credible, but not to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walpurgis nacht Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: Again you are obscenely presumptuous Soddball. I have been to Auschwitz severals time. Straw arguments are nothing more than trolling. And yes, as I said I am only an amatuer . . . some good reason to shame me for that? I think not. I'm sure many of the people in here are only amatuers that are fascinated with history, as I am. Suworov may well be some nazi-apologist-revisionist. I am certainly not an expert on this matter. But it would appear that the Russians were preparing for war. Why the massive industrialization leaning on muntions and tank factories? Why invade Finland? Why invade Poland? These are not the acts of a peaceful, non-aggressive nation. Again, this Suworov may be nuts, but I think the idea that Russia was preparing for an aggressive war is not so outlandish based on their actions leading up to Barbarossa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Walpurgis Night Again you are obscenely presumptuous Soddball. Yea, he does that from time to time. It actually kinda cute, in demented-serial-killer kind of way. Psssstt, wanna the REAL REASON Germany invaded Russia? * * * * * SPOILER ALERT * * * * * Because they thought they would WIN!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: Oh the shock and horror. Now please refer to sig line, no not the part about Soddball being my daddy...the other part. [ April 30, 2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: mike_the_wino ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 when i brought up stolfi's book about 'lost victories' or whatnot... how the germans in their failure to drive for moscow had lost by august of '41... someone else posted a link to a thread along similar lines from some 'wargamers forum' or somesuch... one poster over there went by the name, 'suvarov' or somesuch... anyway, the 'suvarov' at the 'wargamers forum'... well on the one had he posted that he thought that the soviets would have attacked first if given the chance... that they were just about ready to go... but on the other hand he 'loved stalin long time'... to make a long posting short i'm simply pointing out that it is possible to believe that the soviets were indeed 'just about to' attack and at the same time be a stalin lover... or at least to post on boards such as this in that manner... ...oh and that particular 'suvarov' thought that tukachevsky was a moron... oddly enough, when i first opened this thread and saw the posting from 'oz277' i immediately thought of 'suvarov' from the 'wargamers forum'... and interestingly it turns out there was an author by the 'same' name... now 500,000 paratroopers is a new one to me... but in my humble opinion a pre-emptive soviet attack on the romanian oilfields cannot be ruled out... a general attack across the entire line though seems a bit - well perhaps that's being charitable - farfetched... now i know carell is not held in the highest esteem by many here, but he claimed in the prelude to an updated 'scorched earth' that kgb archives opened up in 1989 or thereabouts prove that the soviets were indeed ready to attack later that summer... on the one hand though carell didn't even write under his own real name (schmidt), and on the other hand; even if kgb records 'proved' a soviet attack had been imminent... i mean how trustworthy are kgb archives?... the 'wargamers forum' was 'matrix games' and here is the thread with the postings from 'suvarov' http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21873 look a few pages into the discussion for where the 'fireworks' start... the stolfi book is found here: http://militera.lib.ru/h/stolfi/ the thread about the stolfi book is: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003336#000000 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickeeMao Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Originally posted by Walpurgis Night: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball: Again you are obscenely presumptuous Soddball. I have been to Auschwitz severals time. Straw arguments are nothing more than trolling. And yes, as I said I am only an amatuer . . . some good reason to shame me for that? I think not. I'm sure many of the people in here are only amatuers that are fascinated with history, as I am. Suworov may well be some nazi-apologist-revisionist. I am certainly not an expert on this matter. But it would appear that the Russians were preparing for war. Why the massive industrialization leaning on muntions and tank factories? Why invade Finland? Why invade Poland? These are not the acts of a peaceful, non-aggressive nation. Again, this Suworov may be nuts, but I think the idea that Russia was preparing for an aggressive war is not so outlandish based on their actions leading up to Barbarossa. </font>The massive industrialization could have been to prevent the sort of invasions Russia suffered throughout its history. In the 20th Century alone, they were invaded by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland, the United States, Japan, Turkey, Britain and France (I may be leaving a few out here). Given such a history, it seems natural that they would want a large army. The part of Poland taken by Russia during their invasion used to be part of Russia (I'm not sure of the exact borders, but I believe it adheres to Russia's pre-WW1 border fairly closely), but was taken away from them just after WWI ended. Finland was also part of Russia when WWI began. Russia offered Finland a land-swap for the territory they wanted (Russia wanted a buffer zone next to Leningrad), but the Finns refused. The Russians didn't even want all of Finland back - just the buffer zone (if they had wanted all of Finland, they could've taken it in '44). For the record, I support an independant Finland - if a new Poland was to be created, however, it should have been taken entirely from the territory of Germany (I believe this is what ended up happening when WWII came to a close). I'm always suspicious of historians who too closely identify with one side or the other. This is why I like historians like Glantz and Erickson - they seem to lay blame where it is warranted and give credit where it's due. I don't see why I should waste my time political ideologues from either side - this is true from any period of history, not just WWII. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Phosphorus Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Walpurgis Night: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball: Again you are obscenely presumptuous Soddball. I have been to Auschwitz severals time. Straw arguments are nothing more than trolling. And yes, as I said I am only an amatuer . . . some good reason to shame me for that? I think not. I'm sure many of the people in here are only amatuers that are fascinated with history, as I am. Suworov may well be some nazi-apologist-revisionist. I am certainly not an expert on this matter. But it would appear that the Russians were preparing for war. Why the massive industrialization leaning on muntions and tank factories? Why invade Finland? Why invade Poland? These are not the acts of a peaceful, non-aggressive nation. Again, this Suworov may be nuts, but I think the idea that Russia was preparing for an aggressive war is not so outlandish based on their actions leading up to Barbarossa. </font>Suvarov is not a nazi apologist, he is a fraud and a scam artist. The only purpose of his books is to sell. His whole histography seems to revolve around shocking the reader with claims of facts, scary catchphrases, and circular logic. As for Glantz, I don't think he is unbiased. He seems to have quite an axe to grind with Zhukov. I read his book on Mars, and I still don't get what his problem is. Germany wasn't the only country that got screwed after WWI. A well known German spy by the name of Lenin (the JEWS bombed the WTC, and CIA shot Kennedy), gave quite a bit of Russia away. And Stalin wanted to restore the Russian empire to it's former borders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickeeMao Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 As for Glantz, I don't think he is unbiased. He seems to have quite an axe to grind with Zhukov. I read his book on Mars, and I still don't get what his problem is. *In all honesty, I haven't read his book on Mars yet. I have read 'When Titans Clashed' and attended some of Glantz's lectures (one of which, on 'Hube's Pocket', was a facinating operational study of that battle)* Germany wasn't the only country that got screwed after WWI. A well known German spy by the name of Lenin (the JEWS bombed the WTC, and CIA shot Kennedy), gave quite a bit of Russia away. And Stalin wanted to restore the Russian empire to it's former borders. [/QB] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keke Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by MickeeMao: The massive industrialization could have been to prevent the sort of invasions Russia suffered throughout its history. In the 20th Century alone, they were invaded by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland, the United States, Japan, Turkey, Britain and France (I may be leaving a few out here). Given such a history, it seems natural that they would want a large army.Russia/Soviet Union was not always just a hapless victim of foreign invasions. In fact Tsarist Russia had always been a very expansionistic empire. Originally posted by MickeeMao: The part of Poland taken by Russia during their invasion used to be part of Russia (I'm not sure of the exact borders, but I believe it adheres to Russia's pre-WW1 border fairly closely), but was taken away from them just after WWI ended.How come WW1 borders were so holy and 'legitimate'? Poland had defeated Red Army troops at the gates of Warsaw in 1920, and had advanced as far east as possible before the peace. Didn't Poland deserve its new borders (and independence)? Where ever the borders were before WW1, it didn't justify the 'back stabbing' Soviet Union did to Poland in 1939, in cooperation with Nazi Germany. Originally posted by MickeeMao: Finland was also part of Russia when WWI began. Russia offered Finland a land-swap for the territory they wanted (Russia wanted a buffer zone next to Leningrad), but the Finns refused. The Russians didn't even want all of Finland back - just the buffer zone (if they had wanted all of Finland, they could've taken it in '44). Argghh, here is so much ingnorance that my head explodes! Soviet Union (not Russia) used the same scheme with Finland and Baltic States in 1939. First some border adjustments, then military bases and then assimilation to Soviet Union by various means. Finland was the only one of the four countries who didn't accept any major concessions, and that led to the Winter War. Soviet Union's goal in 1944 was to occupy Finland (it is documented), but with limited resources (naturally), and after failing to do so contented itself with some major border changes and significant reparations. Originally posted by MickeeMao: For the record, I support an independant Finland - if a new Poland was to be created, however, it should have been taken entirely from the territory of Germany (I believe this is what ended up happening when WWII came to a close).I really don't understand why 'new' Poland should have made out of German territory alone. Originally posted by MickeeMao: I'm always suspicious of historians who too closely identify with one side or the other. This is why I like historians like Glantz and Erickson - they seem to lay blame where it is warranted and give credit where it's due. I don't see why I should waste my time political ideologues from either side - this is true from any period of history, not just WWII. Finally some words of wisdom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keke Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by White Phosphorus: I read his book on Mars, and I still don't get what his problem is.It isn't Glantz's fault then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickeeMao Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Keke: Russia/Soviet Union was not always just a hapless victim of foreign invasions. In fact Tsarist Russia had always been a very expansionistic empire. *Hmmm - okay, how much territory did the Soviet Union acquire before 1941 that wasn't part of their national territory in 1914?* How come WW1 borders were so holy and 'legitimate'? Poland had defeated Red Army troops at the gates of Warsaw in 1920, and had advanced as far east as possible before the peace. Didn't Poland deserve its new borders (and independence)? Where ever the borders were before WW1, it didn't justify the 'back stabbing' Soviet Union did to Poland in 1939, in cooperation with Nazi Germany. *You've got it backwards - Poland invaded the Soviet Union in 1920 and was driven back to Warsaw. What justified this Polish 'back stabbing' of Russia?* Argghh, here is so much ingnorance that my head explodes! Soviet Union (not Russia) used the same scheme with Finland and Baltic States in 1939. First some border adjustments, then military bases and then assimilation to Soviet Union by various means. Finland was the only one of the four countries who didn't accept any major concessions, and that led to the Winter War. *I'll reiterate - all of this territory once belonged to Russia. The Soviet Union was taking back what they felt belonged to them.* Soviet Union's goal in 1944 was to occupy Finland (it is documented), but with limited resources (naturally), and after failing to do so contented itself with some major border changes and significant reparations. *I've never seen it documented that the Soviet Union's goal was to occupy all of Finland. This could just be my ignorance - where could I find this documentation?* I really don't understand why 'new' Poland should have made out of German territory alone. *If a new Poland was to be created, I believe it would have been more just to create it from Germany - to reward Russia for its help in WWI by taking its land was unjust* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 I've always thought/read that the Sov's were quiet happy to invade German in their own good time, but 1941 wasn't it - more like 1943-4 maybe - ie it was pretty much still navel gazing. as for the delpoyments of Soviet trops and equipment near the frontier - sure they were there. No-one argues that. They'd been there since the division of Poland. If you've invaded Eastern Poland & various other places for defensive space then you might well choose to put yuor forces in those new territories - the more so to cow the inhabitants and keep tight control. Given teh short range of soviet fighters and the almost complete lack of a proper co-ordinated air defence system you also hav to have youraircraft close to the border to keep up patrols. The facts are not argued by anyone - Suwarow's interpretation of them is some thing else again and appears to be quite ignorant of the wider issues such as Stalin's paranoia and the reorganisation of the Red Army. It's not surprising he takes 9 books to make his point - because first he has to utterly confuse you as to what was actually going on int the world and stop you asking whether or not there could be another possible explaination. And just what it has to do with neo-nazi's is beyond me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OZ77 Posted May 1, 2003 Author Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: I found all his books on lib.ru(on Russian)and had time to read the main chapters so please don't ever post your petty objections to me. :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.