The Non Jewish Historical Thread

[Bonzo'sCostar]

Actually, I had always accepted that Stalingrad was just another example of Hitler's military buffoonery. I can't remember where I read it, but I was intrigued by another way of looking at it. Basically, my unremembered author asserted that a retreat from Stalingrad, at that stage of the war, would have led to a general collapse on the eastern front. Things were going so poorly generally that there would have been nothing to stem a panicky rout.

Turned out it only delayed the inevitable (if we accept the assertion), but it might have provided time and space for something different to happen.

[Noibn]

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

I would have to agree with Patriot and Nobin that Stalingard was a wrong decision by Hitler, but would like to know why you think otherwise.

And yes, the US did help push Japan into the war, however it would have happened anyways. The Japanese Army was spoiling for a war, and while the US embargoes didn't help, at the same time what the Japanese was doing in China was WRONG WRONG WRONG.

As for ideas. Too many to list. I generally leave topics for others because mine are normally too esoteric.

Had the Japanese hadn;t been such militarist and chauvinist shits, their East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere may have worked out...to the detriment of the West.

China is sort of pursuing a modern version of it today.

[TakuanSoho]

Originally Posted by Noibn

Not what's on radio now. White kids, lots of 'em, north AND south, listening to jungle music in 1952? Radical stuff, man.

I always found the German policy BEFORE the war far more interesting. "Berlin Diary" had a great effect on me at about 12 yrs old.

Long live Basil Fawlty!!

Read an interesting book recently, on Nazi propaganda during the 1930's and how Hitler's world view made him a self fulfilling prophet.

Forgot the name off the top of my head, but I have posted it before, and it was published in 2007.

[patriot2342001]

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

It is not for hatred I exclude Jews, but rather to keep from having to respond to idiotic posts like that one :-)

Anyway, lucky that TR was the Vice President and that McKinley wasn't extremely popular, otherwise that assassination would have backfired. Treat it more as a fortunate unintended consequence. Sort of like the Protestant Reformation leading to the age of reason :-)

What is the book's title. Not AS up on the period as I probably should be.

http://www.amazon.com/Murdering-McKi.../dp/0809016389

Not a long book, but loaded with cool little stories. He goes off in wierd directions sometimes on paths to no where, but most times he ties the whole story together.

Would the age of reason happened anyway? The printing press created Reformation, Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, ya?

[Bonzo'sCostar]

Takuan:

And yes, the US did help push Japan into the war, however it would have happened anyways. The Japanese Army was spoiling for a war, and while the US embargoes didn't help, at the same time what the Japanese was doing in China was WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Well, there's wrong and there's wrong. I wasn't referring to the embargoes but more a racist attitude from the west.

Japan, as with most all of Asia, had seen China as the apex of civilization. To see it taken down by western industrial imperialism was quite a shock. Japan figured it must follow the western example of acquiring power as a matter of survival, if nothing else. From Japan's perspective, imperialism - conquest - was a necessary ingredient in the formula. From their perspective, again, it looked like "yellow" people were excluded by the west from that particular club: the west could do it, but not them.

Japan's brutal methods certainly eroded much of any such shield of morality. It was, in addition, a stupid way to go, considering how initial efforts to make the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere a reality had much success. Many Asians who rejoiced at the expulsion of western colonialists would later turn against the Japanese over their needlessly brutal methods.

[TakuanSoho]

Originally Posted by Bonzo'sCostar

Actually, I had always accepted that Stalingrad was just another example of Hitler's military buffoonery. I can't remember where I read it, but I was intrigued by another way of looking at it. Basically, my unremembered author asserted that a retreat from Stalingrad, at that stage of the war, would have led to a general collapse on the eastern front. Things were going so poorly generally that there would have been nothing to stem a panicky rout.

Turned out it only delayed the inevitable (if we accept the assertion), but it might have provided time and space for something different to happen.

That is an interesting point that might have some merit. Would be hard to prove since it is counter-factual, but still one could probably do some research on the matter.

However, it would not have made Hitler's decision "genius". It would have merely been the better of two horrible options. Still, in that the decision to take Stalingard was originally Hitler's idea (I believe, am not a WWII expert, so please feel free to correct me) it would definitely counteract any credit his later decision may have had.

Still, it is always a good idea to look at "establish truths" in different ways. Particularly WWII. I don't mean to praise Hitler in the least, but at the same time there was a tendency to present a too negative cast to all of his decisions and this prevents a truer understanding of the war.

[Bonzo'sCostar]

Takuan:

I did see on another thread your good work on pointing out that Tibet was not shangri-la and the lamas not necessarily kindly, old monks. I'm a liberal. I wish more of us were aware of the realities in this case.

[patriot2342001]

Originally Posted by Bonzo'sCostar

Actually, I had always accepted that Stalingrad was just another example of Hitler's military buffoonery. I can't remember where I read it, but I was intrigued by another way of looking at it. Basically, my unremembered author asserted that a retreat from Stalingrad, at that stage of the war, would have led to a general collapse on the eastern front. Things were going so poorly generally that there would have been nothing to stem a panicky rout.

Turned out it only delayed the inevitable (if we accept the assertion), but it might have provided time and space for something different to happen.

I believe what you are talking about is the Germany army South of Stalingrad that was fighting into the oil region around Baku. Had Hitler pulled out of Stalingrad that army may hve been trapped. I have read that before and forgot about it.

[TakuanSoho]

Originally Posted by patriot2342001

Would the age of reason happened anyway? The printing press created Reformation, Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, ya?

Hard to tell, the renaissance started in Italy so probably, but the domination of the Hapsburgs was a great misfortune by any stretch.

My point is more that the goal of the reformation was more about religious zeal than a desire for scientific advancement. The protestants were even more hostile to scientific advancement than the catholics were (after all the Catholics adopted the Gregorian calender reform) on many matters. The change occurred primarily for political reasons (the fractured German states and British isolation). This is why I call it a fortunate accident.

Not saying that things would have been hunky dory under an unchallanged Catholic state (or the Hapsburgs), but the traditional stereotype of the reasonable protestants and the superstitious Catholics does not bear up well in history.

[TakuanSoho]

Originally Posted by Bonzo'sCostar

Well, there's wrong and there's wrong. I wasn't referring to the embargoes but more a racist attitude from the west.

Japan, as with most all of Asia, had seen China as the apex of civilization. To see it taken down by western industrial imperialism was quite a shock. Japan figured it must follow the western example of acquiring power as a matter of survival, if nothing else. From Japan's perspective, imperialism - conquest - was a necessary ingredient in the formula. From their perspective, again, it looked like "yellow" people were excluded by the west from that particular club: the west could do it, but not them.

Japan's brutal methods certainly eroded much of any such shield of morality. It was, in addition, a stupid way to go, considering how initial efforts to make the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere a reality had much success. Many Asians who rejoiced at the expulsion of western colonialists would later turn against the Japanese over their needlessly brutal methods.

You know, I agree with you to a certain and perhaps even a greater extent, and had the Japanese not been so brutal I would be hard pressed to argue your points, however the Japanese were extremely brutal so it really is moot.

Yes the Japanese were playing the European game, but like many things they took something from the west and "improved" upon it (a bit glib, but true). Japanese society was pretty sick at the time, they snuffed out the Taisho reforms and started the train down the track before one they really had the justification to do so. This made conflict inevitable, and if one compares what Japan was at the time to what the US was, it is perfectly clear that the US (even though we have our sins) winning was the better thing, even for the Japanese.