How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

manored
 
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 11:45 am
@Fido,
Fido;66739 wrote:
The object is to free capital...Look at your calender...Capital never took off until the black plague... Now, perhaps, the problem may be too much capital, and not enough cash, liquidity...Capital owns the world...It has it in its maw, but it just can't seem to choke it down...
No war benefits a contry then this country is among those to suffer greatly with it, even if you count only the higher classes.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 07:52 am
@manored,
manored;66857 wrote:
No war benefits a contry then this country is among those to suffer greatly with it, even if you count only the higher classes.

There are a lot of countries that go into war too lightly, and when this might take the sacrifice of all to win, or even survive, they do not seek consensus...I think they try to pass on the injustice in their own lands to others, and in this those who suffer injustice are the most in favor of, and it is because while revolution is thought a vice, war is considered a virtue...That we should dare to throw off the yoke of injustice and establish democracy is the highest calling of mankind, but it is also the key to world peace...As one guy said of the first world war: A gun is a machine with a working man on either end of it...The people we are killing for our enemies are our friends..

---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------

Aedes;66755 wrote:
Every single Russian except for Stalin knew that Barbarossa was coming. Stalin had been getting personal warnings for months from diplomats, leaders, spies, defectors, and his own military that Germany was about to launch an invasion.

Hitler had no need to secure his flank. The only reason other than procrastination that he invaded the Balkans was he was hoping to goad Stalin into attacking first.

They DID tell him. The invasion of Russia was opposed by Goehring, who at the time was the second most powerful person in Nazi Germany; and some prominent generals like Halder and Guderian also opposed it. The virtual entirety of the generals in the east opposed Hitler's plan to halt Army Group Center rather than taking Moscow. You don't need to look very far to see examples of where Hitler overrode his generals.

It was never a major objective of his until he was nearby, but it afforded him an opportunity to seize the Volga, knock out several entire Soviet armies, and get a symbolic victory. When they were approaching Stalingrad Goebbels' propaganda was teeming with stories about Germany's imminent victory over Stalingrad.

It's immaterial, because Hitler DID try to take Stalingrad, he DID divide Army Group South in order to do so, and he DID forbid any retreat even though the salient created by the German 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army was plainly vulnerable.

And as much as you say that Paulus sucked, he was the one who wisely wanted to break out of Stalingrad once he was encircled. Hitler fell into Zhukov's and Chuikov's trap by pouring soldiers into street fighting while their entire army got encircled.

I did not say that Kursk was late in the war. Kursk was fought in the summer of 1943. The war had 2 years left to be fought, over 1000 miles of territory, and millions of lives. What I said was that the ultimate outcome was a foregone conclusion. Hitler knowingly threw his army against the most heavily prepared and fortified defense in the history of warfare, just because he couldn't bear to order a strategic defensive, and despite the fact that Guderian implored him not to order an offensive after the debacle at Stalingrad.

That would be false by several millions of lives. The Germans lost a good 4 to 5 million soldiers in Russia. They probably didn't even deploy half a million to the Balkans.

Please don't give us this "those people" crap... in the end, most of the soldiers on every side were young kids who were forced to fight, not some automatons with some intrinsic national character. And by the way, it wasn't the people of the Balkans or Russia who had national policies of mass extermination during that conflict...

You're right about Stalin, you're wrong about Hitler. Hitler sent his generals on an idiotic suicide mission based on his erroneous calculus that Russia would collapse like a deck of cards once invaded. When that failed, Hitler blamed his generals, but Germany lost because of operational and strategic blunders, not tactical ones.

You know, My best book on Barbaosa is at my kid's house, but he is a bankruptcy attorney, a real one percenter, not like his dad with his harley; but top income earners..He likes history, but only has time for documentaries... I will stick with what I said, disagree with much of what you say, and yet not having my reference material I am a bad place to defend my position...I don't think Stalin thought they would fall like a house of cards...Hitler's generals should have told Hitler differently, but he had them well in charge, and believe it or not that is not where a leader wants his generals to be...To be hopeful in a world of realities is the guarantee of failure...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 08:20 am
@coberst phil,
Hitler's generals DID tell him differently. Not that they were immune to pusilanimity and error themselves, but the catastrophic miscalculations of Barbarossa fall far more heavily on the shoulders of Hitler than on his generals. Of course Stalin's decimation of his own army made Hitler's generals look awfully good...
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 08:45 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;67661 wrote:
Hitler's generals DID tell him differently. Not that they were immune to pusilanimity and error themselves, but the catastrophic miscalculations of Barbarossa fall far more heavily on the shoulders of Hitler than on his generals. Of course Stalin's decimation of his own army made Hitler's generals look awfully good...

Naturally...He was the one with the prejudice, and he was the one with the knowledge of his resources, and if a general only has limited knowledge then his choices are automatically limited... What every general should realize is how much his men are good for... Just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, people are being kept in the field and under fire for too long, and after a while such people are good for nothing...It is good that they are few in number because many of them will come home seriously mentally ill...But if the democrats give up on the place there will be a stab in the back myth among them and they will be the beginning of a right revolution that will not go anywhere, but be the beginning of a civil war....No one wants to join, and no one wants the draft, especially the generals, because no one wants to command a reluctant army.. But if you really want to end these stupid wars, then have a draft, and the inequalities will be evident, that the rich can evade it and the poor cannot... But it will be the rich and the educated who have better sense than to join this stupidity who will force an end to it...
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 12:29 pm
@Fido,
Fido;67653 wrote:
There are a lot of countries that go into war too lightly, and when this might take the sacrifice of all to win, or even survive, they do not seek consensus...I think they try to pass on the injustice in their own lands to others, and in this those who suffer injustice are the most in favor of, and it is because while revolution is thought a vice, war is considered a virtue...That we should dare to throw off the yoke of injustice and establish democracy is the highest calling of mankind, but it is also the key to world peace...As one guy said of the first world war: A gun is a machine with a working man on either end of it...The people we are killing for our enemies are our friends...
Goverments arent perfectly logical money gathering machines like many people think and I myself used to do. Though they tend to be that way, oftenly the culture of its people as a whole has an impact on its behavior, making it act unlike what is best for its objectives. For example during the mercantilism portugal was gaining a lot of money from its colonies, so it accepted to enter that wine-cloth deal with england even though it knew it was on the losing end... aka: They were so rich they decided to give in to some luxury. That is not how a totally logical money gathering machine acts.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 04:15 pm
@manored,
manored;67718 wrote:
Goverments arent perfectly logical money gathering machines like many people think and I myself used to do. Though they tend to be that way, oftenly the culture of its people as a whole has an impact on its behavior, making it act unlike what is best for its objectives. For example during the mercantilism portugal was gaining a lot of money from its colonies, so it accepted to enter that wine-cloth deal with england even though it knew it was on the losing end... aka: They were so rich they decided to give in to some luxury. That is not how a totally logical money gathering machine acts.

True government, which is to say democracies are logical...The Iroquois confederacy had to consider their decisions in the light of the next seven generation...People are irrational... It is the task of government to be rational, to curb the irrationality of people, to know the facts, to inform the people, and to urge them to a rational dicision... The problem with this majority rule, rule, is that it does not inform, but plays upon the prejudice and bigoty of the people in order to have power over them...
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 12:21 pm
@Fido,
Fido;67807 wrote:
True government, which is to say democracies are logical...The Iroquois confederacy had to consider their decisions in the light of the next seven generation...People are irrational... It is the task of government to be rational, to curb the irrationality of people, to know the facts, to inform the people, and to urge them to a rational dicision... The problem with this majority rule, rule, is that it does not inform, but plays upon the prejudice and bigoty of the people in order to have power over them...
Those who decide are also people and also bound to irrationality, they are merely somewhat more rational.
 
William
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 01:00 pm
@coberst phil,
When the genius of the mind can be bought for a shilling; it can sell the results and the logic for a killing.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 06:35 pm
@manored,
manored;68316 wrote:
Those who decide are also people and also bound to irrationality, they are merely somewhat more rational.

They are much more irrational if they believe that one mind is better than many...Even if one man were to command many, he is a fool if he does not follow them... It may seem that many leaders have the heads up their butts, but really, the successful ones lead from the rear... They find out where people want to go and help to take them there...
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 11:55 am
@William,
William;68328 wrote:
When the genius of the mind can be bought for a shilling; it can sell the results and the logic for a killing.
Try again please Smile

Fido;68424 wrote:
They are much more irrational if they believe that one mind is better than many...Even if one man were to command many, he is a fool if he does not follow them... It may seem that many leaders have the heads up their butts, but really, the successful ones lead from the rear... They find out where people want to go and help to take them there...
I dont think so, otherwise they wouldnt be leaders Smile
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 12 Jun, 2009 01:18 pm
@manored,
manored;68587 wrote:
Try again please Smile

I dont think so, otherwise they wouldnt be leaders Smile

Have you ever read Moby Dick...There is a story within a story about a slave ship, and at the end of it a skeleton of the Captain is revealed tied to bow sprite with the legend, follow your leader attached to him...Considering how many have followed their leaders to their death, one must conclude that is the object...
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 01:37 pm
@Fido,
Fido;68596 wrote:
Have you ever read Moby Dick...There is a story within a story about a slave ship, and at the end of it a skeleton of the Captain is revealed tied to bow sprite with the legend, follow your leader attached to him...Considering how many have followed their leaders to their death, one must conclude that is the object...
No I havent, sorry, and I didnt understand the story very well either Smile

I didnt understand the expression "tied to bow sprite"

Realizing the moment to change leaders has come is as virtuous as following one.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:46 am
@coberst phil,
the israelis were were/are outnumbered. from readings and documentaries, i would say that they are generally more intelligent, possibly through better education/university etc.

these people did not posses superior weaponry. they were just smart enough to do with what they had. for example, the arab forces had the lastest [then] superior russian tanks, while israel had outdated WWII sherman tanks. they supercharged the engines and extended the turrets. they infiltrated the arab armies years prior with people who held high positions in government and the military. the ouzi was inveted during this war, because they needed a small machine gun to run around tight corners when raiding syria's tunnels on the border. they played fake videos on their news of the military enjoying holidays the day before attacking. they struck when they knew the arab airforce were swapping shifts and eating breakfast. they flew dagerously low with the planes to avoid radar. they flew against the sun not to be noticed. they invented napalm for this war, mixing petroleum with a jelly-like substance. they attacked fake airfields, practising over and over for years. they were the ones who found the idea of flattening tyres on 4x4's in order to drive easily on sand. they mapped the deserts of the enemy so as to know where to drive and not get bogged in the deserts.

in other words, they outsmarted, outclassed and proved themselves to be dangerous targets. they fought out of necessity to survive, as all arab nations wanted them destroyed. too bad for the arabs that they picked a people who were smarter and more determined than they were.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 05:47 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;71327 wrote:
the israelis were were/are outnumbered. from readings and documentaries, i would say that they are generally more intelligent, possibly through better education/university etc.

these people did not posses superior weaponry. they were just smart enough to do with what they had. for example, the arab forces had the lastest [then] superior russian tanks, while israel had outdated WWII sherman tanks. they supercharged the engines and extended the turrets. they infiltrated the arab armies years prior with people who held high positions in government and the military. the ouzi was inveted during this war, because they needed a small machine gun to run around tight corners when raiding syria's tunnels on the border. they played fake videos on their news of the military enjoying holidays the day before attacking. they struck when they knew the arab airforce were swapping shifts and eating breakfast. they flew dagerously low with the planes to avoid radar. they flew against the sun not to be noticed. they invented napalm for this war, mixing petroleum with a jelly-like substance. they attacked fake airfields, practising over and over for years. they were the ones who found the idea of flattening tyres on 4x4's in order to drive easily on sand. they mapped the deserts of the enemy so as to know where to drive and not get bogged in the deserts.

in other words, they outsmarted, outclassed and proved themselves to be dangerous targets. they fought out of necessity to survive, as all arab nations wanted them destroyed. too bad for the arabs that they picked a people who were smarter and more determined than they were.

I have been reading about the secret wars of Israel; and I will tell you they have always had the plan to take over that place and drive those people out... The Palestinians were poor, and they were poor too, but with far more money than the palestinians...They bought smuggled German and Italian weapons from Australian troops... They early on organized intelligence services, long before they were a state... And one of the recommendations coming out of the early period was to declare a rabies out break as a excuse to kill all the Arab dogs... To me this is one bit of proof positive that they were the aggressors, because dogs are good only for defense... They used the natural and long term personal or political divisions between the Arab people to gain an advantage over both sides... Clearly, after the first war, when many Palestians could have returned; they chose instead to live in refulgee camps because they were terrorized...I am not going to say it was not back and forth, or that outrages were not commited on both sides... Clearly, when the war was going on, the intelligence people were complaining that some of their informants, surrendering to the army, and asking to talk to their employers were instead liquidated... How many were liquidated simply for surrendering??? This is like torture, and a betrayal of honor; to kill a person within your control who is unarmed... Now; I know that Israel lost a large part of their population in that first war...I am not saying they deserved the holocaust...If Britain had not helped them, mostly by being incompetent; but some times, actively, out of prejudice against the Arabs, then Israel would not have had nearly the easy time of it....
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 06:06 am
@manored,
manored;68822 wrote:
I didnt understand the expression "tied to bow sprite".
The bowsprit is one of these:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bowsprit.jpg
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 06:53 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;71350 wrote:
The bowsprit is one of these:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bowsprit.jpg

There was also often a carving of a woman, a spirit, a sprite, with eyes wide open for danger...
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:21 pm
@coberst phil,
So, bow sprite is that pointy end of the ship?
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Thu 25 Jun, 2009 11:14 pm
@Fido,
Fido;71347 wrote:
I have been reading about the secret wars of Israel; and I will tell you they have always had the plan to take over that place and drive those people out... The Palestinians were poor, and they were poor too, but with far more money than the palestinians...They bought smuggled German and Italian weapons from Australian troops... They early on organized intelligence services, long before they were a state... And one of the recommendations coming out of the early period was to declare a rabies out break as a excuse to kill all the Arab dogs... To me this is one bit of proof positive that they were the aggressors, because dogs are good only for defense... They used the natural and long term personal or political divisions between the Arab people to gain an advantage over both sides... Clearly, after the first war, when many Palestians could have returned; they chose instead to live in refulgee camps because they were terrorized...I am not going to say it was not back and forth, or that outrages were not commited on both sides... Clearly, when the war was going on, the intelligence people were complaining that some of their informants, surrendering to the army, and asking to talk to their employers were instead liquidated... How many were liquidated simply for surrendering??? This is like torture, and a betrayal of honor; to kill a person within your control who is unarmed... Now; I know that Israel lost a large part of their population in that first war...I am not saying they deserved the holocaust...If Britain had not helped them, mostly by being incompetent; but some times, actively, out of prejudice against the Arabs, then Israel would not have had nearly the easy time of it....



as far as i understand, the israelis were the people of the area we call palestine from biblical times. they were thrown off their land back then. in more recent years, the israelis took back their land. i feel that the palestinians have been hard done by, because it was too long a gap since the israelis lost their land.

at the end of the day, the only way this problem can be solved is for both to share the land/country. this will never happen however. it is too unrealistic. also, both sides have populations that are stupid due to the fact that they believe in improbable and ridiculous religions.

the stupidity will continue however, as both sides continue to brainwash their own children with fairy tales of god blessing them as the chosen people :sarcastic: once these types of stupid beliefs are swept away, along with greed and power, then logic may prevail.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:43 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;72366 wrote:
as far as i understand, the israelis were the people of the area we call palestine from biblical times. they were thrown off their land back then. in more recent years, the israelis took back their land. i feel that the palestinians have been hard done by, because it was too long a gap since the israelis lost their land.

at the end of the day, the only way this problem can be solved is for both to share the land/country. this will never happen however. it is too unrealistic. also, both sides have populations that are stupid due to the fact that they believe in improbable and ridiculous religions.

the stupidity will continue however, as both sides continue to brainwash their own children with fairy tales of god blessing them as the chosen people :sarcastic: once these types of stupid beliefs are swept away, along with greed and power, then logic may prevail.

I agree that the stupidity will continue... The Jews hold on Israel rests upon two legal claims: One is the grave of Sarah, which gives Israel the people their name, and the other was that they took it with Genocide...When is the last time you met a Philistine??? We think from the Bible that these people were crude; but archeology tells us they were able and artistic...I think the Jews have a bad, and dangerous attitude toward non Jews...I don't want to kill them,, or make them slaves; but I do want them to stop the nonsense in Israel... They are the same as those people, and it is possible that they are genetically little different... They justify what they can get away with as most people do, and since we run scared of terms like Anti Semite, they have the advantage... If we don't play like they want, we are Anti Semites...In fact, the people there are Semites, and they are Jews who have married into every population they have been around and kept a cultural distinction...They are not all that terrible...If they would just give up on the idea that we exist to feed them and make them rich, they would be just people...They are smart, and because they are smart they think they are entitled...I've never turned my intelligence to exploiting people...Intelligence is an obligation to be better...
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 10:38 am
@coberst phil,
People have the bad habit of deciding people/things have "fundamental rights", such as piece of land, that should be respected for all eternity. Yeah, right, just because you were the first human being to ever step in a certain island, doesnt means everone else in the world must reserve it for you and your descendants for all enternity. To me, arguments such as "We/our antecestors were here first" or "We/our antecestors found this place first" are childish arguments that, unhappyfully, seen to be widely spread and accepted. Its just greed struggling to find a steping stone to justify itself.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 05:02:53