|
| Thread: VE Day 60th Anniversary |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted May 08, 2005 12:21 PM |
|
|
VE Day 60th Anniversary
Well as the title says, 60 years ago today the war in europe officially came to an end on what will always be called VE (Victory in Europe) day. Around Europe and much of the world people will remember those soldiers from all countries who fought in the war, and ceremonies will be carried out in many capital cities no doubt.
What annoys me however is the continuing political skirmishes and points scoring that surround events like this. In Poland for example, the choice of the Prime Minister to attend events in Moscow was roundly criticised by opposition members who went as far as taking out adverts complaining about it. Obviously the issue is a little thorny for Poles given that the victory left them under Communist rule for decades, but to me there's something a little... unsightly about using anniversaries to score political points.
I'm also a little unimpressed with Bush's appologies for the way the war ended. Now don't get me wrong, I'm as unhappy as the next history buff that half of europe ended up under Stalin's regime, who lets be frank was little removed from Hitler's in brutality. However, to appologise for Yalta makes it seem like the allies had any choice in the matter by that stage. Yalta, with it's acceptance of european division into "spheres of influence" merely confirmed what we already knew was going to happen anyway. The Russians were not very likely to just simply leave Eastern europe because we asked them nicely to. Should the western allies have gone on to fight Russia also to "liberate" that region? I don't personally think they could have done it frankly. Therefore whilst I see no problem in expressing regret that events occurred that way, to call decisions at Yalta "mistakes" and applogise for them neither makes any real sense, and in a small way rewrites our perception of history. By inferring that alternatives could have been persued it gives the impression that the Western Allies willfully stabbed the Eastern Europeans in the back without reason other than cowardice.
I guess he was trying to get Putin to own up to Russia's ill-doings in the period by starting the process of applogies, but frankly it seems a rather pointless appology as I've never been entirely convinced that a politician appologising for events prior to his tenure in office means a thing really. Perhaps Bush would have preferred war on Russia rather than what happened at Yalta, but in my experience if we had gone on to do so, we'd have one hell of a lot more to be appologising for right now.
Anyway, to all those soldiers, still alive or not we owe our grattitude, our respect and the promise that we should endeavour that another such conflict should not occur again.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 08, 2005 03:11 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 8 May 2005
|
Great Big Divide
This makes me think how different Europe is from my country. Most people don't say a single word about WWII or the cold war. People are always asking me to tell stories of what happened in those days as if it had no impact on the things we do today. Perhaps for Americans, the impact wasn't felt so deeply as those in eastern Europe whose countries were illegally signed away as soviet property for western consolidation and control. Sometimes I wonder what it must be like to live in the proverbial stepping stone nations of eastern Europe. They often find themselves 'stepped' on when war breaks out on either side.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Lich_King
Honorable
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 08, 2005 04:15 PM |
|
|
If you want to find out, what it's like, move to Belaruss, I assume you'll find yourself a nice feeling of soviet regime or what is left from it...
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 08, 2005 05:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps for Americans, the impact wasn't felt so deeply as those in eastern Europe whose countries were illegally signed away as soviet property for western consolidation and control.
As I said, Yalta did nothing more than confirm the reality on the ground. This kind of argument makes it sound like there was some sort of big choice the western allies had to make when in reality they had none.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 08, 2005 11:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps for Americans, the impact wasn't felt so deeply as those in eastern Europe whose countries were illegally signed away as soviet property for western consolidation and control.
As I said, Yalta did nothing more than confirm the reality on the ground. This kind of argument makes it sound like there was some sort of big choice the western allies had to make when in reality they had none.
Yes I agree with you PH. In fact it is rather strange to see something like Yalta called illegal. In my book there has to be a law broken for something to be illegal. This was not the case, as there where no international law at that point.
And again, a war against USSR at that point looked to both Roosevelt and Churchill as lunacy, in fact with 20/20 hindsight it still looks like lunacy.
Regards
Defreni
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 08, 2005 11:41 PM |
|
|
Of course, one could argue that since Stalin never allowed free elections to be held in the Soviet-occupied areas of Eastern Europe, despite what he'd promised FDR and Churchill, the occupations were "illegal". But trusting Stalin to keep promises that had been extracted from him by people he didn't trust at all, doesn't really seem very reasonable. In addition, these were nothing but verbal promises really, that cost Stalin very little to give, or break for that matter. The only "rule" or "law" he'd be breaking were Wilson's old thesis about national self-determination, but that was, thank God, never accepted as interantional law.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 08, 2005 11:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And again, a war against USSR at that point looked to both Roosevelt and Churchill as lunacy, in fact with 20/20 hindsight it still looks like lunacy.
Exactly. One person I know on another forum in favour of such a war said that Patton thought it was plausible and wise. Given that Patton was prone to boasting beyond his means or any sense his opinion shouldn't be counted too highly IMO.
After all, Patton boasted the 3rd army alone could best the entire red army....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 09, 2005 12:07 AM |
|
|
Didn't the Red Army field some 3 million troops at that time? 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 09, 2005 12:17 AM |
|
|
Somewhere around that would seem right *too lazy to go check* 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 09, 2005 12:21 AM |
|
|
Its all acquiring petty political points and diplomatic provocations. After all, you'll see them all today (including Bushie) sitting calmly there and saluting to all those communist memorabilia which colour Moscow these days.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 09, 2005 12:23 AM |
|
|
I think it was halfway meant as a rhetorical question, as I read about it just two days ago, and seem pretty sure that's the number. Laziness is present in Norway too, though...
EDIT: No need to make a new post to say this. In reply to the post below: "Obviously. "
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 09, 2005 12:38 AM |
|
|
So the answer is Patton was out of his mind
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 09, 2005 10:48 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 9 May 2005
|
Bah..
I've heard the exact same criticism for MacArthur. I can't believe your consistent scrutiny of past military generals Privatehudson. It is your right to say as you please. And I'm sure nothing would please you more if only you were right. This was not the case and history remains unchanged. I can't believe I'm even arguing over this. It is most certainly a moot point.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 09, 2005 11:31 PM |
|
|
I'm not suprised, they're personalities were not so different to be fair. My scrutiny is usually fair (just try me on Monty for example!), I accept that Patton was a very talented general in a certain role, but he was also an egotist and strict anti-communist who saw no problem with the idea of using Nazis to work or fight against communism. His analysis of the situation in 1945 though is both flawed and based on boasting, unless you'd like to debate that.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 10, 2005 12:29 AM |
|
|
Speaking of Monty (presuming this is the right place to ask this question). A couple of years ago, I got my hands on a copy of his "A History of Warfare", from 1969 or thereabouts, and I was wondering if you'd know how reliable his opinions on the commanders and battles of old are?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted May 10, 2005 12:50 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 9 May 2005
|
Two Sides of the Same Coin
I'm not arguing that at all. I agree that Nazism might have been used to defeat the communists. It's the cold calculated kind of ideas that come with the job of being a general in my opinion. Tis all hence that I have my firm belief why a general shouldn't become president of my country(even though history would disagree with me).
I'm simply saying that you and I have very different opinions my friend. You once described your annoyance with the foolishness of Nelson being picked off by a sniper from a French naval vessel's scaffolding. You said he practically was asking to be shot for having marched up and down the deck of his ship in full military regalia.
I could not disagree more. Here's a leap I'm willing to bet as well, because it would seem to go congruance with your general opinions. You probably also wouldn't hesitate to mock King Richard the Lionheart for what Saladin coined as being wreckless with his own life. This to the contrary of my own belief that it was this outstanding characterisitc among many others that gave him such loyalty among those he led into battle. Tell me I'm wrong about Richard. Somehow I think I might actually be on to something. What say you?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 10, 2005 12:54 AM |
|
|
I can't say I've ever read the book myself. Montgomery, Like Patton and MacArthur were given to bouts of self promotion and blaming others for their own failing, so I imagine it may not be as accurate as it could be.
I distinctly remember hearing somewhere that Alanbrooke, the Chief of Imperial Staff during the war* once confided in King George V that Montgomery disturbed him because he always got the impression that Monty was after his job. The king told Alanbrooke he shouldn't worry since Monty gives everyone that impression!
After the war Montgomery did get Alanbrooke's job. He never quite made king though
*I guess that'd be roughly akin to head of the joint chiefs of staff or whatever they call it in the US army.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 10, 2005 01:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm simply saying that you and I have very different opinions my friend. You once described your annoyance with the foolishness of Nelson being picked off by a sniper from a French naval vessel's scaffolding. You said he practically was asking to be shot for having marched up and down the deck of his ship in full military regalia.
I stand by it too. However, just because I think he shouldn't have been suprised to have been wounded so often does not necessarily mean I think he was wrong to be there on that deck. I do however think a little more subtlety was in order, his men knew him far too easily already, medals on the chest were not needed by Nelson to be recognisable, he wore them to boast and show off. Nelson was a fine officer, but he was no stranger to self importance by all accounts, least he had talent though.
Quote:
You probably also wouldn't hesitate to mock King Richard the Lionheart for what Saladin coined as being wreckless with his own life. This to the contrary of my own belief that it was this outstanding characterisitc among many others that gave him such loyalty among those he led into battle. Tell me I'm wrong about Richard. Somehow I think I might actually be on to something. What say you?
I wouldn't mock any general for bravely risking their life. I would however say that a modern general who does so at the risk of loosing control over events overall on the field of battle are both rash, careless and certainly would question their judgement. In Richard's day such tactics worked and were expected, however with the rise in firepower of armies, and also the rise in size of armies comes the responsibility to control the entire battle, not fight in one section. History tells us all too often that such concentrated generalship brings disaster and more often than not high casualties. Brave it may be, but frankly stupid and self defeating. Generals do not have to lead from the front to earn the respect of their men, Wellington never lead a charge in the peninsula, but his tenacious attempts to preserve the lives of his men in battle and willingness to be where he was needed in the frontline earnt their undying loyalty and trust in him.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted May 10, 2005 03:15 AM |
|
|
Aye,
Wellington did just that. I suppose it's the old debate and point of fact:
~A good General knows his own limits. He either can lead from the high ground or he can't; it doesn't make any difference either or, but luck favors those who are in the right place at the right time. The right place being that which he knows he is good at. The right time being dependent on the right place during an unforeseeable sequence of events. 'As luck would have it...'
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 10, 2005 03:59 AM |
|
|
I don't think it's necessary to fixate on an ability to fight from the frontlines too much frankly. Napoleon and Lee, two of history's arguably finest generals were not known for overly risking their lives in battle for example. On the other hand Wellington at Waterloo spent the entire battle precisely where he needed to be, often in the middle of infantry squares surrounded by cavalry. Whether a general can or cannot lead from the front is all but irrelevant when judging the skills of the more modern generals as it is no longer a necessity.
I'd also argue that being in the right place is as much to do with planning and judging your opponent as luck. By understanding those concepts you to a greater degree make your own luck. Wellington was behind the foot guards at the end of Waterloo because he knew that would be where Napoleon's guard would attack, not because of guesswork. No doubt luck has a factor, but the best of officers diminish it's effect by their talent.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
|
|
