12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Russia which lost 30.000 tanks and recovered in 1941? I mean perhaps Russia's strength surprised everyone ( Hitler himself said in private when he didn't know he was being recorded that he was completely shocked by the numbers of Russian tanks ). You're saying that everyone underestimated Russia?

Then frankly the Brits where stupid.

Actually, that was the case yes. Everyone underestimated Russia. Which is why Churchill was like "wtf" mid way through the war and did everything he could to compromise the USSR.

Though I would not blame them that much. Russian performance in Finland was pathetic and Stalin's purges and policies did not seem to be an effective course of action. That same guy was also crucial for the war effort (not strategy wise).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:12 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Bombers. Surely much more practical than the Amerika bomber project thing.

They can be shot down, and then you have the risk of your precious bomb getting captured by the enemy.

That's always a risk in any war, with any weapon or technology, that it can fall into enemy hands. I doubt this would have hindered any German intentions of using their new weapon, especially as the Germans still had a superior Air Force to everyone else., on the tech and training front. they really only got outdone with the B-17, a plane that was out of the reach of their airdefenses.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Bombers. Surely much more practical than the Amerika bomber project thing.

They can be shot down, and then you have the risk of your precious bomb getting captured by the enemy.

The USA took the risk. Why wouldn't Hitler, the greatest gambler in the story.

There are several ways he could have detonated those bombs in Russia and I am sure he would have tried it. And not just one or two bombs.

[Costin_Razvan]

That's always a risk in any war, with any weapon or technology, that it can fall into enemy hands. I doubt this would have hindered any German intentions of using their new weapon, especially as the Germans still had a superior Air Force to everyone else., on the tech and training front. they really only got outdone with the B-17, a plane that was out of the reach of their airdefenses.

Then there's that German jet program, so I guess so. Still the Americans would have had it earlier and I'm talking about years.

You might wanna check the previous page for an udpate on my last post there.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:20 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Actually, that was the case yes. Everyone underestimated Russia. Which is why Churchill was like "wtf" mid way through the war and did everything he could to compromise the USSR.

Though I would not blame them that much. Russian performance in Finland was pathetic and Stalin's purges and policies did not seem to be an effective course of action. That same guy was also crucial for the war effort (not strategy wise).

That I guess led to what happened. Germany getting completely crushed. If it was really the case like then maybe Churchill never really intended for it to end like it did.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
The only reason the Holocaust is as known as it is today is because of the political usage it had in the aftermath of the world. But think of the Holodmor.

Stalin

Killed

Ten Million people

in one

WINTER.

Everything that Hitler, every irrational part of that human that he was, every massacre cannot, and will never match what Stalin did with the Ukrainians, yet 90% of the world does not even know of the ****ing word Holodmor.

I'd hate to play devil's advocate here, but it's still debated whether Stalin deliberately wanted them to die, or if they died as a consequence of his policies.

Either way he is responsible, but there are different kinds of responsability.

Hitler was clearly trying to exterminate several peoples and groups from Europe, with no real material / practical objectives in mind.  Stalin was aiming for collectivization and rapid industrialization (in some if not many ways, he was succesful on the latter part) and we are not yet sure if he deliberately wanted these millions to die. 

I personally lean towards the middle argument. That he deliberately wanted the middle class land owners to die, but not all these millions.

Doesn't make him any less responsible, but it adds nuance.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:30 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Stalin sent troops to take ALL the food from people's homes and set troops to guard the fields so no one would take any grain. That's what I would call deliberate to let all those people die. He had people going from house to house with bags of bread that would be given in exchange for dead people. He wanted to kill as many as he could.

Of course the world only admitted it happened in 2004.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:32 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Bombers. Surely much more practical than the Amerika bomber project thing.

They can be shot down, and then you have the risk of your precious bomb getting captured by the enemy.

Skadi: I really, really, really need to stress this next part out about the Holocaust: Not that many people knew about it at the time, and even today there are a lot of people who deny it happened or just don't know it occured, especially in the areas you are talking about.

The only reason the Holocaust is as known as it is today is because of the political usage it had in the aftermath of the world. But think of the Holodmor.

Stalin

Killed

Ten Million people

in one

WINTER.

Everything that Hitler, every irrational part of that human that he was, every massacre cannot, and will never match what Stalin did with the Ukrainians, yet 90% of the world does not even know of the ****ing word Holodmor.

The holocaust was their dirty secret. However, their rhetoric and doctrine of the "Aryan" race were no secret, nor were a number of German atrocities in Poland and other places, at least as far as the british intelligence and govornment was concerned. The public might not have known, but the people in charge knew. But even publically, the Germans were quite open in their racial supremecy doctrines, enough that it would alienate many British colonies where the majority of people were not European or "Aryan".

But you are right about Stalin. Before Hitler ever set eyes towards the Polish Border, he had already wiped out 20 million Ukranians alone, not to mention thousands or millions of other nations. He was as evil a bastard as Hitler, as his purges were based on idocy, paranoia, and such. Hell, it's suspected Stalin had more Jews murdered during his reign than died in the Holocaust.

But KoP hit the nail on the head, when he said that the problem was that everyone underestimated the Soviet Union. Given Stalin's retard massacre sprees, the general backwards state of the Soviet economy as well as technology in the 20's and 30's led most of the world to believe that the Russians were on a backwards march into oblivion. Which is why everyone saw Germany as the big boogeyman. The Germans were the most technoligically and industrially advanced country in Europe, perhaps even the world, at that time. And everyone knew once the Germans got the wheels on their war machine turning, they were near unstoppable except by a huge coalition. World War 1 had shown this.

Thus, why Churchill and others were only guilty of not realizing just how big and bad the Soviets were getting. But again, it was based on assumptions of the time and past.

But they ended up throwing their lot in, at least, with the devil that appeared less threatening. Hindsight is 20/20.

The only way the cold war could have been prevented was if Germany had not started all this BS in the first place. The Soviets would have probably failed any attempt to get past a fully armed, mechanized Germany, and the US at that time really didn't give a sh*t much about internal European affairs.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Costin
Never read about that. I knew it was horrible, but not to that point.

In any case, both were irrational. The big difference is that Stalin was more logical. Which made him all the more terrifying.

And he had this almost superhuman relentless energy. If only to was used for something more productive, he would have been brilliant.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:37 .

[Costin_Razvan]

But even publically, the Germans were quite open in their racial supremecy doctrines, enough that it would alienate many British colonies where the majority of people were not European or "Aryan".

Information back then did not travel as it did now. Not that many people knew even about the attitudes of the Germans towards non Aryans in countries even close to Germany that were reasonably developed compared to the rest of the world.

So no, I very much doubt the British agreeing with a truce would have pissed off their colonies. What do they care about some people dying in Europe anyway?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:36 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Never read about that. I knew it was horrible, but not to that point.

I learned about it two years ago, or was it one? I don't recall, but watch a Soviet Story. it's a documentary, very accurate as far as I've checked, as to the Soviet crimes.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:40 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

But KoP hit the nail on the head, when he said that the problem was that everyone underestimated the Soviet Union. Given Stalin's retard massacre sprees, the general backwards state of the Soviet economy as well as technology in the 20's and 30's led most of the world to believe that the Russians were on a backwards march into oblivion. Which is why everyone saw Germany as the big boogeyman. The Germans were the most technoligically and industrially advanced country in Europe, perhaps even the world, at that time. And everyone knew once the Germans got the wheels on their war machine turning, they were near unstoppable except by a huge coalition. World War 1 had shown this.

Not to mention the humiliation Russia suffered against Japan and their ****** poor performance in WW1.

Not sure how much of this sudden surge we can attribute to Stalin's leadership, but he was impressive in that regard, despite being a bloodthirsty vulgar brute.

A shame really, that he had the mind but lacked the character and vision that would have made him an excellent leader.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:46 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

But even publically, the Germans were quite open in their racial supremecy doctrines, enough that it would alienate many British colonies where the majority of people were not European or "Aryan".

Information back then did not travel as it did now. Not that many people knew even about the attitudes of the Germans towards non Aryans in countries even close to Germany that were reasonably developed compared to the rest of the world.

So no, I very much doubt the British agreeing with a truce would have pissed off their colonies. What do they care about some people dying in Europe anyway?

News Traveled fast enough that it could be picked up and disseminated by sh*t stirrers to foment rebellion. Which was known to happen, from time to time in the British Empire.  As I said before, the british were already having trouble keeping their colonies together and compliant, a number were sensing the weaknesses and taking advantage of the weakness to make a bid for independance.

They didn't have the internet, but propoganda was still an easy tool in the right hands.

[Costin_Razvan]

I doubt the impact would have been as considerable as you would suggest, if there had been any impact at all on the colonies directly because of it.

Still this has been the most interesting discussion in terms of history and politics that I've had in MONTHS. Now however I've got to get back to recording for TGN. Doing an Alpha Protocol walkthrough. ( I was rendering for hours while we were talking and now that's finished ).

Check it here if interested: www.youtube.com/playlist

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:52 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



Not to mention the humiliation Russia suffered against Japan and their ****** poor performance in WW1.

Not sure how much of this sudden surge we can attribute to Stalin's leadership, but he was impressive in that regard, despite being a bloodthirsty vulgar brute.

Exactly. In the previous 40 uears of the 20th century, Russia's military and domestic performance had been abysmal to that point, so it was understandable why people did not look at them seriously up. I think Stalin's drive for industrialization previously was not the only factor in their success and impressive comeback, but it was certainly a signifigant one. Especially given that, barely 20 years earlier, much of Russia was starving peasants in mud huts being lorded over by nobility that didn't care about the future or country.

So going from pretty primitive to being first in Space 40 years later is pretty damned impressive.

[Costin_Razvan]

I think Stalin advanced Russia to a level that it could not sustain. Once he died it started decaying.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I think Stalin advanced Russia to a level that it could not sustain. Once he died it started decaying.

I agree.
And to add to that, I'd paraphrase Mordin  (yea Bioware can be smart on occasion). 
Russia's culture did not match its technological advancement.

If anything, Stalin made it worse and destroyed all semblance of civil society.

I think states can enable great civilizations to flourish, but they don't manage every aspect of it. Great civilizations come from great dynamic productive societies, not ovebearing governments that squeeze the life out of the society.

[Bayz]

It should be noted that often in history empires become monstrous leviathans but are not culturally influential until they start decaying.

Technological advances tend to make nations flourish, cultural advancement tend to start appearing when said nations start to decay, obviously this is not always true but it is most of the time (Roman empire influencing barbarians outside its sphere was stronger during the years were they were economically collapsing, the spanish golden age started when the empire started to lose all its influence in Europe and the Britons were never as culturally prodigious as they were in the 80's...the trend goes by...)

Eager to know why the thread has derailed that much...

Modifié par Bayz, 16 décembre 2011 - 01:20 .

[Zjarcal]

Bayz wrote...
Eager to know why the thread has derailed that much...

Because there's nothing else to talk about (that and some of the regulars here have lost interest in Bioware as a whole so even if a discussion pops up they're unlikely to join in).

Consider this thread a hub of people who like or used to like Loghain to talk about random stuff (with maybe the occasional Loghain art popping up).

Modifié par Zjarcal, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:16 .

[Bayz]

So its like a \\b\\ for Loghain fans basically

[csfteeeer]

Minus the Furry/Pedophile Comments and calling anyone who isn't here "F*gs"

[KnightofPhoenix]

We leave that to PMs.

[csfteeeer]

I'll think of some sort Sarcastic Response for that Later, i'm hungry.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Ahhh, KoP and Costin, that's a pretty good summary of why the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed. The political mentality and the culture it was enforcing was not one that could continue to sustain progress. This is where the Chinese, despite being communist, have succeeded. They adapted more pragmatically. Pure, unrefined communism is completely unsustainable in the long run if it is practiced in a nation as large as the old Soviet Union was, unless certain core comprimises and adaptations were made to the system, especially in the economic sector. I personally think Communism is really only sustainable in smaller, tighter knit communities. And the Russians weren't willing to make the necessary adaptations and changes, where the Chinese were. At least on the economic front.

And I think this will crumble Communism in China. We already see a rapidly growing middle class in China who are more educated, have more disposable income, and are going to be demanding more liberal social reforms before long, and it could get to the point where the Chinese govornment is going to have to take note. I don't think it would be as easy to pull off Tienenneman 2 nowadays.

[Costin_Razvan]

are going to be demanding more liberal social reforms before long, and it could get to the point where the Chinese govornment is going to have to take note. I don't think it would be as easy to pull off Tienenneman 2 nowadays.

Uhm not really.

The Chinese do not think as westerners do at the end of the day. Certainly there is some opposition to the regime, but the vast majority of the people, even from that class you mention, wouldn't even imagine protesting against the regime.

Still more personal freedoms could happen, but a fully fledged democracy? No ****ing way, and it would be the worst thing China could do right now.

Remember that the protests started over the death of a communist party leader, certainly they escalated but still.

Democracy is seriously overrated as a system.

P.S. Where the hell have you been until yesterday? You just went MIA.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 09:27 .