wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes On destroying fascism Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Reply locked New topic
Author

On destroying fascism

Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
In case somebody really believes it was a breeze, my father was (apparently) starving since he was 6 till 10, and since then, you couldn't ever leave anything remotably eatable in the kitchen and hope to see it again the next morning. I suspect, Jew people can tell you far more exciting stories.
Not that I expect any degree of understanding.


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5370
... my pain is pain, your pain is plain ....
[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 01, 2002
Posts: 126
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
In case somebody really believes it was a breeze, my father was (apparently) starving since he was 6 till 10, and since then, you couldn't ever leave anything remotably eatable in the kitchen and hope to see it again the next morning. I suspect, Jew people can tell you far more exciting stories.
Not that I expect any degree of understanding.

I am not sure how many lives were gone with that breeze.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
In case somebody really believes it was a breeze, my father was (apparently) starving since he was 6 till 10, and since then, you couldn't ever leave anything remotably eatable in the kitchen and hope to see it again the next morning. I suspect, Jew people can tell you far more exciting stories.

Stories don't have to be exciting to serve many purposes.

Not that I expect any degree of understanding.

Understanding can come from personal experience or through learning from others, reading books, watching movies, etc. But so far, we do not have enough for a story..
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Here in the heartland, we've been led to believe Stalin was a real bad guy. Is it not true?
Has the other side vilified Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower?
By the other side I talking about somewhere beyond Berlin. Frenchmen need not waste their key strokes on me.
[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
The Russian people suffered severely to win WWII. However, WWII might never have happened if Stalin hadn't signed the non-agression treaty with Hitler in the first place. As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

A non-aggression treaty with Hitler. All they had to do was refuse it, and WWII might have been averted. I'm at a loss to understand why.
[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The Russian people suffered severely to win WWII. However, WWII might never have happened if Stalin hadn't signed the non-agression treaty with Hitler in the first place. As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind.

The official point of view was that the USSR signed the non-aggression treaty after several attempts to organize anti-Hitler coalition, which Western governments politely refused. To buy some time for preparation to the war, the non-aggression treaty was signed. Here is some chronology:
"1938 September 30,
Munich Conference (Agreement): Britain (British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain) France (Daladier) and Italy (Mussoline) grant Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Hitler to avoid war; Hitler gives Chamberlain his personal word on future cooperation (the height of the policy of Appeasement): ("Peace in our time").
18 March 1939,
Stalin ask for coalition against Hitler, Chamberlain refused
23 August 1939,
Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact in Moscow"
Well, that's what I was taught - that precisely "Munich Deal" prompted Stalin to sign a non-aggression pact.
And this is not only that "the Russian people suffered severely". Our (official again and perhaps egregiously wrong) statistics claims that Soviet troops destroyed 4 times more Hitler divisions than the Allies. Now here comes Thomas Paul and explains that to destroy fascism was a breeze for Americans. If this was so easy, why did not you destroy fascism right in 1938 or 1939? Free advice: the USA could wait until 1945, then to destroy fascism would be even easier.
As for your saying that goes somewhere, can I ask how is it different from saying that the USA deserved 9/11 for their support of mujaheddins? As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind. :roll: With the exception that the price was 20 millions of victims in the first case ("Stalin's" people only, without Europe) and few thousand in the second.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5370
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
As for your saying that goes somewhere, can I ask how is it different from saying that the USA deserved 9/11 for their support of mujaheddins? As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind. :roll: With the exception that the price was 20 millions of victims in the first case ("Stalin's" people only, without Europe) and few thousand in the second.

These are my words
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Here in the heartland, we've been led to believe Stalin was a real bad guy. Is it not true?

It is true.
Has the other side vilified Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower?
By the other side I talking about somewhere beyond Berlin. Frenchmen need not waste their key strokes on me.

Still not sure what "the other side" means, but in case you ask how Soviet propaganda worked, I wasn't there at the time, so I am not sure. What I heard in 70-80-s, were not so much personal attacks on Roosevelt, Truman or Eisenhower, as general notion that they expressed their country egoistic (capitalistic) interests -- that's all. As a bonus I wasn't asked to provide, I can tell that regarding the USA's role in WWII, there was/is great aggravation that the "Aliens" only started to help us after it became clear who is going to win the war, and that we could win this war without any help. Basically the general attitude was/is "thank you guys, it was so nice of you, really, really nice". Now I want to say that personally I *do* appreciate that American people made such great sacrifices in a war that did not threat their country directly. I cannot think about another example in history when so many people would go to another continent to fight a war that wasn't a mortal danger to their home country. This is something that the Soviets always downplayed, as well as the scale of the USA involvement in this war.
[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Steve Smith
Greenhorn

Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 6
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

that we could win this war without any help.
[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

I don't want to detract from the huge effort, paid in blood, by the Soviet people to defeating Germany, but you did get some help - my father was in Iraq helping the British convoys of trucks carrying oil and ammunition to Russia before the US got involved, and before you rebuilt your factories in the Urals. As an historical irony one of his jobs was to shoot Kurds who tried to sabotage the oil fields, but friends and enemies change over time...
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
From my experience, nobody ever belittled the sacrifice or understated the size of the Soviet effort against the Axis powers.
I think the appeasers get some bad publicity, but they are not really held responsible for Hitler's actions. This responsibilty belongs to Hitler and the German people. Many Americans have disassociated themselves from their German heritage due to this legacy.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
If you look at the Soviet-Germany non-agression pact, you will see that it was a secret concordance to destroy Poland and the Baltic states. The French and British already had a treaty with Poland that they would declare war if Germany invaded Poland. Statlin assumed that he and Hitler would be friends and conquer the world together.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Saving Private Ryan was a great movie that I still love and still get choked up on, but I wondered what a person from the Soviet times or from Russia now would think? Their losses were so much heavier they could have never have considered the luxury of a mission trying to save one man. Do they consider what was done idealistic, foolish, or admirable?
Steve Smith
Greenhorn

Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 6
I'm not 100% sure how based on fact that mission was. Did they really go deep into enemy territory for one man, or is that just the Hollywoodisation of history?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Steve Smith:
I'm not 100% sure how based on fact that mission was. Did they really go deep into enemy territory for one man, or is that just the Hollywoodisation of history?

It is fiction.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
As a bonus I wasn't asked to provide, I can tell that regarding the USA's role in WWII, there was/is great aggravation that the "Aliens" only started to help us after it became clear who is going to win the war, and that we could win this war without any help.
The US only got involved when Germany declared war on us! Are you telling me that in December 1941 it was clear the Soviets were going to win? The Germans were 30 miles from Moscow but somehow the US and Britian knew that Hitler had lost the war?
This is something that the Soviets always downplayed, as well as the scale of the USA involvement in this war.
The US also downplayed the Russian involvement in the war to some extent. The Russians, though, do tend to ignore a couple of things. The USA was fighting two wars. At the same time that we were fighting against Germany we were also fighting against Japan. Also, in 1941 the US army was fairly small, under supplied, under trained, and poorly led. The first battles we fought in North Africa show that the US army was far from ready for an invasion of Europe. 1944 was the earliest the US and Britian could have invaded France. A large part of that was because the German army had been bleeding from the Russian victories.
JeanLouis Marechaux
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 12, 2001
Posts: 906
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

It is fiction.

... and it gives a good image of the USA.
I wonder if USSR has ever made this kind of film.
How do you call that in english... prapaganda ?
btw, I think the film was not that bad, but it has to be seen as a fiction, and nothing else.
[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Bailey ]

/ JeanLouis<br /><i>"software development has been, is, and will remain fundamentally hard" (Grady Booch)</i><br /> <br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.epfwiki.net/wikis/openup/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Agile OpenUP</a> in the Eclipse community
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Now here comes Thomas Paul and explains that to destroy fascism was a breeze for Americans.
I guess you didn't notice the after my line. That means it isn't supposed to be taken seriously.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
As for your saying that goes somewhere, can I ask how is it different from saying that the USA deserved 9/11 for their support of mujaheddins? As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind. :roll: With the exception that the price was 20 millions of victims in the first case ("Stalin's" people only, without Europe) and few thousand in the second.
There is a huge difference. The US never supported the Taliban. They never gave a penny of aid to the taliban. The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR. There was no secret agrement to carve up India after Afghanistan won. The US did not turn their back on any allies by helping the Afghanis as the Soviets did when they helped the Germans.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Bill Bailey:
btw, I think the film was not that bad, but it has to be seen as a fiction, and nothing else.
Fiction and fact mixed together. The scenes of the D-Day landings were historically accurate. The scenes of the confused state of the battles across Normandy were accurate. The only thing that wasn't accurate was the mission to save Private Ryan.
JeanLouis Marechaux
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 12, 2001
Posts: 906
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
. The only thing that wasn't accurate was the mission to save Private Ryan.


Right, and as it is the main theme of the film, that's why I think it has to be seen with a lot of caution, as a whole.
Just like when you see a Rambo. There were prisoners in Vietnam, but one guy killing an army with 1 knife and a box of matches... :roll:
[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Bailey ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Bill Bailey:
Right, and as it is the main theme of the film,
I thought the main theme was the brutality of wars and the self-sacrifice required by those who fight them.
JeanLouis Marechaux
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 12, 2001
Posts: 906
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I thought the main theme was the brutality of wars and the self-sacrifice required by those who fight them.

That's because you're clever and cultured enough to see what's occurate and what's not.
But do you also see Rambo as a philosophical methaphor about brutality of wars ??
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Bill Bailey:

That's because you're clever and cultured enough to see what's occurate and what's not.
But do you also see Rambo as a philosophical methaphor about brutality of wars ??

Sometimes fiction can more clearly emphasize a point and make a greater impact in a way that unadorned historical fact cannot.
Here's the point of the movie : We (many of us) are all private Ryan. We are in the same position that he is as a survivor in that we would not be alive were it not for the sacrifices of those thousands who died for the mission of elimnating the Nazi threat. The statement at the end applies to all of us "Earn this!". What we have today cost a lot of blood. Are we worthy of those sacrifices?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Bill Bailey:
But do you also see Rambo as a philosophical methaphor about brutality of wars ??
No, I mainly see it as Sylvester Stallone demonstrating that muscles are more important than acting ability at the box office.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
I recall Alexander Solzhenitsyn writing in one of his books that as the Nazis retreated there were occassions where entire Russian(Ukranian?) villages would retreat with them away from advancing Soviet troops. He noted that never before in human history had an invaded people went voluntarily with an invading army. Guess some people preferred the Nazis over the Soviets?
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
Good stuff, I suggest we don't make it about who did more in WWII though...
My personal (russian) opinion about the film...I thought it was a pretty patriotic fiction. I've noticed Tom Hanks and others occasionally were more worried about ruining their shoes - which is rarely the case when bullets are flying above one's head. One scene cracked me up, when they were setting up a plan, hiding behind a half-ruined wall, and someone sat right accross from big hole in it...in a real war that guy would've been dead meat in 2 seconds. Other than that, action was pretty well shot.
herb slocomb: I recall Alexander Solzhenitsyn writing in one of his books that as the Nazis retreated there were occassions where entire Russian(Ukranian?) villages would retreat with them away from advancing Soviet troops. He noted that never before in human history had an invaded people went voluntarily with an invading army. Guess some people preferred the Nazis over the Soviets?
That's one of these "urban legends". First of all, stuff like that has been hapenning in the past, and is a common situation for questionable territories (meaning "territories that have been part of several different states in the past"). Second, and I don't know how other people see Solzhenitsyn...but to me he one of those folks who made himself popular bashing anything related to Soviet Union, and such a person can hardly be considered a hero. Third, if he was probably been talking about Ukraine, it is a separate issue entirely, because Ukraine has been a separate state before, and they don't like Russia very much to begin with....that's a short version of it...
Shura
[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]

Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR.

Wow, what a selfless act!

The US did not turn their back on any allies by helping the Afghanis as the Soviets did when they helped the Germans.

But they sure turned there back on Afghanis as soon as USSR was gone.


I'm just saying...it's right there!
JeanLouis Marechaux
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 12, 2001
Posts: 906
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
No, I mainly see it as Sylvester Stallone demonstrating that muscles are more important than acting ability at the box office.

frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
herb slocomb: I recall Alexander Solzhenitsyn writing in one of his books that as the Nazis retreated there were occassions where entire Russian(Ukranian?) villages would retreat with them away from advancing Soviet troops. He noted that never before in human history had an invaded people went voluntarily with an invading army. Guess some people preferred the Nazis over the Soviets?
That's one of these "urban legends". First of all, stuff like that has been hapenning in the past, and is a common situation for questionable territories (meaning "territories that have been part of several different states in the past"). Second, and I don't know how other people see Solzhenitsyn...but to me he one of those folks who made himself popular bashing anything related to Soviet Union, and such a person can hardly be considered a hero. Third, if he was probably been talking about Ukraine, it is a separate issue entirely, because Ukraine has been a separate state before, and they don't like Russia very much to begin with....that's a short version of it...
Shura
[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]


Solzhenitsyn bashed the Soviets because they murdered millions of their own citizens and enslaved hundreds of thosands in the Gulags. He wrote while in the Gulags risking his life that you could know the truth. Hardly a traitor to the Russian people.
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 01, 2002
Posts: 126
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
There is a huge difference. The US never supported the Taliban. They never gave a penny of aid to the taliban. The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR. There was no secret agrement to carve up India after Afghanistan won. The US did not turn their back on any allies by helping the Afghanis as the Soviets did when they helped the Germans.

"The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR." --- Only idiot will trust that, at least no USA presidents ever ever trust that in their hearts.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Abadula Joshi:

"The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR." --- Only idiot will trust that, at least no USA presidents ever ever trust that in their hearts.

During the Cold War, the US often helped anti-Soviet forces throughout the world.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
But they sure turned there back on Afghanis as soon as USSR was gone.
Because of who took over. Even as recently as 1997 the US was attempting to negotiate with the Taliban to provide help with millions of dollars in aid. The fact that this aid was never sent was the fault of the Taliban.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Wow what a selfless act.
I'm not sure what the point of this is. Are you trying to say that the US acts in its own best interest? Well, duh!
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:

But they sure turned there back on Afghanis as soon as USSR was gone.

You prefer the US to stay and intervene in the internal affairs after Soviets were gone? Or are you saying the US had some type of obligation to shower them with money?
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I'm not sure what the point of this is. Are you trying to say that the US acts in its own best interest? Well, duh!

I was amsued by what you said, "The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR". You know as well as I do that US's only interest was to undermine USSR. It didn't have an iota of interest in the "freedom" of Afghanis. Your comment seemed to suggest, at least to me, just the opposite.
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 01, 2002
Posts: 126
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I'm not sure what the point of this is. Are you trying to say that the US acts in its own best interest? Well, duh!

That's rule No.1 on page one in Internal Politics 101.
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 01, 2002
Posts: 126
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I'm not sure what the point of this is. Are you trying to say that the US acts in its own best interest? Well, duh!

It will be the shame of this country if it doesn't "acts in its own best interest"...
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

You prefer the US to stay and intervene in the internal affairs after Soviets were gone? Or are you saying the US had some type of obligation to shower them with money?

I don't prefer anything. US had of course no obligation. But then it did not have any obligation to "help" Afghanis attaing freedom either. I am only saying that US acts only in self serving manner. I don't find that policy wrong in any way but bit professing that your act is selfless seems childish at best.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: On destroying fascism
 
Similar Threads
EJB in part2
The best IDE for the work place is ???????
tabIndex in Ratio Button
Thanks & How to
Open diferent screen within a jsp screen