Elie Wiesel on Oprah - Editorial on miscellany . . .

[Scrogdog]

Interesting post.

To me, the study of warfare is not about evil or violence. It is a study of the human condition. The best and the worst man has to offer all on stage.

I do not and never have felt guilty when I have won as the Axis. I have simply thanked the gods that things did not go that way historically.

A test of wills is a test of wills... whether that happens to occur on a baseball diamond or a battlefield is irrelevant in terms of the event being interesting.

Of course, as has been already pointed out, the possibilities and permutations of alternate history are rather fascinating to think about.

I started playing wargames when I was 17 and did not know fig about history or warfare. That interest has sparked a love of the study of history that I would not consider a bad thing for any young person.

Besides... you are there to guide them and answer questions.

[aesopo]

Freedommmmmmm! What price freedom? Substituting one evil for the other just because we are battle weary is not the answer. It is better to die than to be caged like an animal! AS for today's geopolitical situation, yes we messed up in Iraq instead of paying attention to North Korea.

[Guest Mike]

Whever I feel war is at all "glamorous" I think of how it must have been in th etrenches in WW1, or freezing to death in Russia in 1941-42 or 1812, or being close enough to an enemy to be stabbed in the guts at Cannae in 217BC or standign under a hail or arrows at Thermopylae.

And then I thank god my territorial service only took me as far as the frosty or sun-baked tussock-tundra of the NZ Army's training grounds at Lake Tekapo for a couple of years, and that the little toy soldiers are made of plastic and lead alloy and pixels!

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by aesopo:

Yet we choose to ignore the millions that Stalin put to death because he was on the side of the winning team? Or the UN to be very slowwwww to react to the genocide in Rwanda and other parts of Africa? We have not learnt our lessons yet.

Or the US tortures in Iraq. Or the British colonialism. No, we haven't learned our lessons : that's the way things always go : the losers always are condemned by history.

The only exception is Napoleon : he is still seen as a good ruler for some reason. And how the heck he could lose Waterloo is a mystery to me.

[SeaMonkey]

Its only a game. But wargames have a connection, mostly to the past, but some with potential future ramifications.

We play intially because that is what it is, play. Same as fishing, sports, collecting, we extract some degree of enjoyment, escape from the day to day necessities of living, stress management for some.

The Axis represent the disadvantaged side, always a favorite for enthusiasts.

The connection? Well that is the special thing about wargaming. The playing of, eventually compels us to examine the roots of.

Man's constant struggle with himself, when he is at his best and his worst. The ultimate struggle of good vs evil, yet an inner struggle that tears him apart and serves to be the terminator of his very existence.

What is the attraction? Need I say more?

[JerseyJohn]

The Great US v USSR Preventive War of mid-1945

1) The U. S. troops in Europe, after the defeat of the Nazis wanted one thing and one thing only, to be discharged and return to civilian life. There was anxiety about whether or not they'd mutiny in ordered to report for action against Japan. So, ordering them to go after the Soviets, especially after being told for four years that we loved both Russia and Stalin is a very odd idea. If American troops were being attacked they'd have fought hard as ever defensively, but offensive actions? A preventive war? Forget it. And forget the congress staying behind the president that ordered it -- Truman would have been impaled a day after his DoW on the USSR.

2) What makes anyone think the U. S. troops in Europe could have run through the Soviets, as Patton is supposed to have said, "Like shot through ****." What arrogance! Outnumbered, at the end of their supply base and war weary. Our main trump would have been air superiority and electronics technology -- the Soviets didn't have radar. Well, the thing is they did have a pretty good Air Force in 1945 and would have had radar shortly as captured technology from the Germans.

Sorry, I don't see that crazy scheme as working.

Further, I don't see it as having been justified. Stalin didn't do anything in Eastern Europe and the Balkans that he wasn't sanctioned to do by Churchill and FDR. Worse, the French in mid-1945, newly revived, were very pro-Soviet; which is why DeGaule was kept away from the Yalta Conference.

Anyway, assuming a quick Anglo/U. S. blitz in Eastern Germany mid-45, the fall comes and those troops are stuck in Russian mud with a very, very long supply line behind them and a bunch of ruined European cities. How likely was it that the United States could have called up the many millions of new troops needed to continue the push on the USSR? Come the serious winter weather and the Americans would have been no better off than the Germans had been in 41-42.

-- Oh, but we had those two A-bombs, of course. Well, Stalin had already considered that and the premise was that the German invasion had been the equivalent of two dozen nulear attacks, so he wasn't overy concerned about the two, maybe three A-bombs a year the U. S. would be putting out.

Isn't it just possible that Truman and Churchill knew all of this even as the war was winding down and that's why that insane scenario was never played out? Or even seriously considered, not even by Churchill, who would surely have loved to see the USSR fall apart.

-- And, conversely, Stalin didn't consider making a move on the west. It was a simple situation, whoever turned on the other was doomed regardless of the initial results.

[Guest Mike]

The Soviets were just as exhausted remember - probably even more so - they'd lost a massive % of their population, and much of their industry was running on lend-lease imports - especially aluminium, communications (rail (they built 20 loco's during the war, got sent over 1000) and radio) and explosives.

[JerseyJohn]

True. Which is why I say that Stalin couldn't have moved against the West.

But the West couldn't have moved against the East either.

Literally a standoff.

-- -- And, which ever side was attacked, would have had an immediate boost in morale. Both sides were filled with veterans who wouldn't have been easily run through.

-- But, largely because Patton made all that hollow noise, the myth that we could have wrapped it all up became popular. It's only a myth, nothing more. Forty years ago I talked to many men who served in Europe and they all said they were happy as hell we didn't go to war with the Soviets in 1945 because it would have been a blood bath and none of them thought we'd have done more than hold what we already had. One uncle told me he never even heard that idea till years after the war had ended. At the time there was absolutely no basis for it. Except, perhaps, in the not entirely reliable mind of George S. Patton.

[Guest Mike]

Found some figres at http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html

Allies sent:

80% of the USSR's locos received during the war, 80% of it's railway cars, 92% of it's rails, 59% of its avaiation fuel, 33% of its explosives, 45% of it's copper ore, 55% of its aluminium, 28% of its machine tools, 30% of its sugar and 15% of its meat.

Just for interest's sake!

[JerseyJohn]

Yes. Our aid went a long way in carrying them through. But -- by war's end the last thing the United States wanted was another major war. Especially not one against our major ally, the very people we'd been told for four years were so similar to us -- freedom loving and all that, Stalin was not portrayed as a ruthless dictator during the war, but as a sort of Russian George Washington -- and we were still at war with Japan!

So we attack the USSR in Central Europe. What happens? Anyone who thinks we just roll them back to the Pripyets is dealing in fantasy. We attack them, at some point they recover their initial shock -- Stalin is now running the Great Patriotic War Against The People's American Enemies. He's not at war with Japan yet so they're his allies!

No Manchurian invasion, no more Mao fighting the Japanese, now he's fighting openly against the already unpopular Nationalists and their Anglo/American allies.

As I said before, where does the United States draw it's troops from at this point? We've already got something like 20,000,000 in uniform, a huge number in support roles, spread out all over the globe.

-- Patton wanted to rearm German POWs. The Soviets had a lot more of them than we did and could have done the same thing, I'm sure they'd have fought for either side, especially in a situation that wouldn't have made any sense to any of them. Along the way I guess we also release all the SS men and gestapo and forget any thoughts of war crimes trials.

Can't see any of that benefiting the United States. Also, can't see the U. S. government in any way backing such a plan.

Aside from which, the ill-feelings between east and west didn't start till, conveniently, the United States had already begun sending substantial numbers of troops back home and demobilizing naval and air units.

I think there was only one man on earth who believed in any of this. And when he starting getting too loud and too open about it he may well have been killed by his own country -- if not in an arranged accident, then in conveniently terminal medical care.

-- What always intrigues me is what would we have used for the premise? How, exactly, does Harry Truman tell the American people that we've just attacked yesterday's great allies, The Soviets, who we'd performed such heroic efforts and accepted such great loss of civilian and naval personnel to help supply, because -- uh, what was the reason again?

[Blashy]

The Soviets relied on the Allies for a big part of their supplies. Cut them off and yes they have more manpower, but would have ended up on the loosing end.

Lets face it, USA alone was virtually outproducing everyone else put together.

They would have pushed them to the Russian border quite easily and given all these countries freedom and then have all these countries (manpower) on their side, with Japan out of the war Siberia would have been another area the allies could have entered.

It would not have been a 1-2 year fight, but 4-5 years, yes, but the right thing to do.

How many people suffered (DIED) because of the totalitarian state of the USSR until its fall?

Countries only do the right thing if they can benefit from it, if not, they'll support anyone or anything (USSR, Hussein, Latin American dictators, Saudi Arabia, etc...) as long is it does not affect them, most of the time they work it out so they benefit.

Greed is winning the war in humans and it will be the downfall of humanity. I just hope I'm around to see it. If we don't wake up after that, time for humans to kick it and the planet to be perfect once again. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :cool:

[JerseyJohn]

Given them freedom? Yeah, the democratic tradition of 1945 Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Poland, Russia, Germany, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania?

Sorry, this is all nonsense.

Anyone who seriously believes any of this hasn't learned a thing from the United States experience in either Vietnam or Iraq, or the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.

It wouldn't have mattered even if we'd beaten the Soviets in the initial battles. By the time we finished slugging our way into Russia itself we'd have become the enemy of those people, not their liberators but the ones who'd attacked them and were now bombing them.

Our own troops would have been demoralized and war weary. I was in uniform at a time when it wasn't overly uncommon for junior officers to give orders that were laughed at by troops who told them to **** off and walked away.

We couldn't have occupied Germany and, in exchange for their help -- which would have been vital to us -- the very criminals we'd arrested would have been hauled out as their leaders. And damn unreliable ones at that because they'd have hated us almost as much as the Soviets -- who we'd attacked! Morally we'd have been just another thug state like all the rest.

And those German POWs, I doubt very much that they'd have marched off to the same battlefields so many of them had recently died at singing God Bless America.

-- All in all, I find this an absurd premise. Unless somebody comes up with something from a reputible historian who wrote some serious work on the possibility of the United States attacking the USSR in 1945, I'll be bowing out of this thing. Already said everything I've got to say on the matter.

Never would have happened. Never would have worked. Was never even considered. End of story.

[R.J.]

I don't think it's a fascination with evil. I think it's a fascination with aggression. Aggression is part of the male psyche. War is an expression of that (so are sports for that matter). Aggression can be used either for good or evil, but a game removes the aspect of good and evil by removing itself from reality, so there is really no moral dilemma.

The Germans are fun to play in the early war years because they're on the offensive- i.e. being aggressive. They're not so much fun in the later war years.

I think the Nazis hold some extra fascination because as both an army and a society they pretty much perfected aggression as a way of existence. Playing Germany is rather like playing the Roman empire – all that aggression perfectly formed, controlled, and directed toward the chaotic barbarian hoards. Nazi Germany was modeled after the Roman empire. And Western Europe was awash in a lot of "chaotic" freedom at the time.

Certainly every man struggles between the lure of evil (the desire to "cast aside all the rules and morals that govern our lives") and the pull of conscience. Sadly some people empathize with those who choose uninhibited aggression.

But ultimately the second world war is the epic story of how good (maybe not perfect good, but good nonetheless) was able to find the strength and resolve to stand against the perfected aggression of evil. That's what fascinates me about WWII.

[Terry]

Let's remember that Patton isn't remembered in Europe with the same enthusiasm as in the States. Given that, the majority of Europeans were unlikley to support his great 'plan' to wipe out the final remains of Europe with a self-destructive war with Russia in '45. It's just one of those ideas that sounds great when you're on the other side of a very wide pond.

[SeaMonkey]

My impression is JJ has got a pretty good take on this post German surrender scenario.

I'll cite Truman's objection with McArthur's suggestion of bombing Chinese staging areas in Manchuria during the Korean war, "Wrong time, wrong place, wrong enemy", or something to that effect.

The lesson is to act when the evil is in its infancy. Recognize its potential early and neutralize it before it becomes strong.

The chance was lost in 1919 at the lesser cost, then completed ????, well we hope, 70 years later at an enormous cost.

Of course you must run the gauntlet from those that supposedly have the greater clarity of vision, so they say, and preach we shouldn't get involved. Takes a great deal of conviction to overcome a vast media of naysayers, especially when your inclined to do the "right thing".

Its either here or there, now or later, but one thing is for sure, it will have to be confronted.

Has history taught us that ........yet???

[Timskorn]

Sounds like we need a post-WWII (reformed)Allies vs. USSR mod.

[Lars]

Why? So the Russians can crush them like a bug again?

[Rolend]

I have to agree with JJ I think it would of been insane for America to go after Russia in 45. First Europe was done with war, after all they had been at it 2 years longer and most of the fighting, destruction and dieing had been done in Europe.

Who would of fought with us? The English, maybe but even if they had they were shot, nothing left so they would not of been much of a help except as a jumping off point for our troops. The French, pffffft thanks but no thanks, "I surrender France" would just get in the way. The Germans LOL a few of the fanatical ones but not enough to count.

As for all those supplies we were sending to Russia, well you think all of it had been used up? Think again Uncle Joe had been stock piling a LOT of it in the last 6 months of the war, great we get to fight an enemy with far greater numbers fighting with stuff we supplied them.

Don't forget the Japanese, if they saw us going to war with Russia do you think they would of surrendered even after we dropped a couple of bombs, not a chance.

I am sorry but I think this idea is loony we would of fared worse then the Germans in Russia and that is if you could even convince the American people to go along, the same people that never even wanted in the war in Europe.

I am as proud and patriotic American as any one but this idea that Americans are some how super warriors and can beat anyone any time is just arrogant and dangerous to boot, not to mention just plain wrong.

It is that same attitude that got us into trouble in Nam and now in Iraq and frankly I am getting tired of being the worlds policemen while being scorned by the rest of the world as the center for all the worlds problems. I think the Americans pre-WWII view had it right, isolationist, let others clean up their own problems.

**** Gets off soap box*******

[jon_j_rambo]

Okay, who's going to make the mod(s)?

Red Star Falling

Patton's End Run

[aesopo]

The allies hsould have let the USSR bleed some more in manpower losses while only sending very token supplies - while they were still bogged down in the east -

we could have done our D-day number to greater effect

These are all hypothetical what ifs.

[Chris G]

Are you by any chance talking about the Elie Wiesel that claimed that the Nazis used fire instead of gas until 1956?

What mad him change his testimonies 11(!) years after the war?

“Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ...”

Elie Wiesel in Night (his memoirs)

By the way, guess whose quote it is below?

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Chris G:

Are you by any chance talking about the Elie Wiesel that claimed that the Nazis used fire instead of gas until 1956?

What mad him change his testimonies 11(!) years after the war?

“Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ...”

Elie Wiesel in Night (his memoirs)

By the way, guess whose quote it is below?

Germans burned the bodies what so strange about that? That's no secret at all. Go to Auschwitz-Birkenau and stick your hand into the mud and you'll see how deep the layers of clay is...

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Chris G:

By the way, guess whose quote it is below?

Winston Churchill.

[R.J.]

Originally posted by Chris G:

By the way, guess whose quote it is below?

After a bit of googling it appears that quote is sometimes attributed to Churchill, but only on neo-nazi web sites. It's a poor translation from German also. In one forum I found, someone wrote:

"Mr. Richard Langworth of the Churchill Centre has now replied. According to him there were no hits for "Germany's unforgivable crime" or "create her own exchange mechanism" in their 13 million word digital file of Churchill's written and spoken words. He also told me that the "wrong pig" quote also seems like a misquote."

[NON neo-nazi site: ]http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=93082&sid=d8b34824b607c4388aac89b5b2e1d940]

A lot of decent men fought and died to allow all individuals the right to hold even the most repulsive viewpoints without fear of retaliation from the state. But don't think that freedom means your safe from being shunned in polite society if you trot out those viewpoints for public display.

[Desert Dave]

Are you by any chance talking about the Elie Wiesel that claimed that the Nazis used fire instead of gas until 1956?

You got yer flag, Chris G,

Be proud, be happy, and

Wave it high and brave, yep,

Some prefer to be the back-brained slave

To some odious old or, Neo agenda,

OK by me,

I'll always fight for free speech

And also - fierce as I can,

Against "fascist" idealogues,

In Sweden,

In America, yeah,

We got plenty,

Reaching to highest levels of Government.

As for the rest of them Self-debasing

And child-swaggering fantasies,

I advise,

Leave... it... alone, yes?

There are plenty around here,

Me included,

Who have Jewish family members,

Who lost beloved relatives

And yet mourn for their dead,

Who yet can

Appreciate the best of GErman culture

And great achievements over the Centuries,

Of those mostly decent Volk,

And, even... enjoy a WW-2 ETO game

Without feeling the need

To wear the Brute's black cloak

Soaked in running blood red

Or lightning striking white.

But,

Pretending that Nazi atrocities

Are something less than despicable,

You are ignorantly stomping around

The WRONG forum,

There are other vile places you can visit

And spout all manner of

Self-seen-as-inadequate,

Self-impotent bullsh*t,

So - confine yerself, yes?