Russia tread

[Monte Carlo]

Of course not.

[Walsingham]

Of course not.

 

Not really. Fine line between focus and simplicity.

[Rostere]

To clarify my previous post: you'll notice that I didn't mention anything about whether British commanders were indeed incompetent or not - something I do think we could discuss in another thread ("Performance of WW1 officers" or something along those lines). My main point was trying to argue against people changing things in school textbooks for "patriotic" reasons, which is wrong regardless of what those things changed might be. I think that if you want to change something in a school textbook and you choose not to motivate the changes with them being more factually accurate, but instead argue that your new version is more "patriotic", something is very, very wrong. This is not something that should happen in a modern democracy, and I think we all can agree on that. I think that much of this thread has been about excessive Russian nationalism, and its errors.

 

So the original relevance for this was the fact that the Russians might have been doing their own "patriotic" historical revisionism. Essentially we're comparing the same, or at least similar behaviour, in two different nations. I just wanted to drop into the conversation to say that I think we should condemn "patriotic" historical revisionism, regardless of it's form or which country it manifests in.

 

It might be worth noting that one of the enablers of the disasters of WW1 (everything from the actual outbreak of the war to the "mass charge" tactics employed) was actually "patriotic" sentiments which had been encouraged during the time of imperialism, but which the Congress of Vienna had kept from damaging Europe until then. Even though the war was fought over a ridiculous casus belli consisting of almost literally nothing - whether or not investigators from A-H could enter Serbia in the investigation of the murder of Franz Ferdinand - people flocked to recruiting stations. The leaders of the countries involved were just as inflamed with patriotic fervour. What reason was there for anyone to join the war other than vain attempts to preserve or increase their own pride? This can be said about every country but especially of A-H, the primum movens of the particular state of instability which triggered the war. Germany on the other hand would have been the country that could reasonably have made the most difference in the build-up to the war, considering they gave their far weaker ally A-H a carte blanche for short-sighted expansion and the stupid annexations in the Balkans (you could call it A-H was the "bizarro Israel" of Germany, credits to another forum member for inventing this term in the discussion on Syria).

 

We should not think ourselves inherently psychologically superior to our ancestors or somehow resistant to the nationalistic lures which created WW1. Today we are (virtually) the same human beings as in 1914, with our only advantage being our knowledge of history, our experience regarding the circumstances which created WW1 (and by extension WW2). The only thing which keeps us from doing WW1 again is that benefit of hindsight, and the introduction of humanist principles. We should make the most of that knowledge and not head down the slippery slope of nationalism and so-called "patriotism" again, repeating old mistakes.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Rostere

[BruceVC]

.

 

All we are hearing in this thread is a lazy, binary analysis. It's beneath the level of intelligence of the majority of people on this forum.

 

You correct of course and you forgetting  to mention the fact we have you to point out our intellectual impotence and lack of ability to have debates to your level of mental stimulation...but Monte we are striving and trying to reach your level....be patient ...don't abandon us ...

[Monte Carlo]

 

.

 

All we are hearing in this thread is a lazy, binary analysis. It's beneath the level of intelligence of the majority of people on this forum.

 

You correct of course and you forgetting  to mention the fact we have you to point out our intellectual impotence and lack of ability to have debates to your level of mental stimulation...but Monte we are striving and trying to reach your level....be patient ...don't abandon us ...

 

 

I shall try my best to tolerate you.

 

In other news, here's Putin setting his Intolerable Bigot dial to ten...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25785161

[Zoraptor]

Wals- I read that link last time you (? iirc) posted it, albeit I only realised where I recognised it from part way through. It is an interesting read but needless to say I don't agree with its analysis.
 

The Marxist interpretation of WW1 is as crude as the jingoistic one. Top-hatted imperialists from Krupps et. al smoking cigars as the working man dies in his millions to feed the imperialistic war machine, an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Please, pass the bucket.

Let me know where that was used so I can criticise it too. Oby has been noticeably absent the last few days.
 

The post Congress of Vienna Great Powers system kept Europe at peace for a hundred years, no mean feet.

Yep. Well, apart from the Crimean War. And the Austro-Italian War. And the Austro-German War. And the Franco Prussian War. And the first Balkan War. And the Second Balkan War. And various other Balkan wars, and....
 
The stability from the CoV was always illusory and temporary, as all such things are. Realistically its peace lasted only a few decades, followed by an armed truce for forty further years much as the League of Nations and Versailles was effectively a truce for twenty years. There is a certain irony in citing the CoV also, given why its vision ultimately failed.
 

It collapsed, sure, and industrialization / imperialism of those powers is part of the reason why it collapsed (in much the same way as globalisation and comms tech is destroying the current Great Powers system). It's not the only reason. Not by a long shot.

 
Ironically, it collapsed primarily due to nationalism and its effects on the balance of power. Once two of the Great Powers had decayed badly and there were upstarts looking for new spoils it could never last, since it relied on everyone with power (basically) having a balance of what they wanted and what they did not want their enemies to have- for its stability.
 

German aggression started WW1. Bellicose backing of the Austro-Hungarian fringe was part of an expansionist mindset. Blame Bismarck, blame the Kaisers, blame dreadnought ****-envy, but this is unambiguously also part of the story.

Eh? We're to blame the Germans unequivocally but one sentence later that's part (your emphasis) of the story? Nobody has dealt with the origins of WW1 here as that really is stretching relevance and is even more pointlessly contentious than anything else that has been said. FWIW I have no problem with why the UK joined WW1 and there's really no way to blame them for it starting except in being too successful, it's mainly the leadership quality (and if I'm completely honest, it's frequent bad effects on my countrymen specifically) and the post war conduct I have problems with.
 

And then we have August 1914 and a 19th century war fought by 19th century generals but with 20th century technology. Add the tinder-box of Russia in 1917 and the stage was set for the apocalypse (lit by the Germans when they sent the bacilli of Communism back into Russia via the Finland Station).

All we are hearing in this thread is a lazy, binary analysis. It's beneath the level of intelligence of the majority of people on this forum.

Maybe, just maybe, that's all you're hearing because you have little interest in listening. You're always going to dislike this sort of discussion because you are a British Nationalist (er, meant in the nice way, not the Nick Griffin way) so there will inevitably be a lot of stuff you don't agree with.
 
And let's be frank, the 'CoV giving a century of peace' is both a very binary and very arguable point in and of itself.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Walsingham]

I don't think I posted from RUSI last time. But never mind.

 

If I may summarise the arguments as I understand them, it comes down to three key points:

 

1) The war couldn't be resolved in the air or at sea, and had to be fought out on land, on the 'Western' front.

 

2) The Western front, combined with the logistics and weaponry of the day meant that a mobile war almost immediately settled into a continuous compressed front line.

 

3) The compressed and continuous front line meant that:

3.1) There was no option other than a frontal assault, because there were no flanks

3.2) Sitting still couldn't prevent you taking casualties, because the line was constantly subjected to artillery, gas, and sniper fire. The 'best' option being to try and end the war as quickly as possible.

 

We could talk about the political dimension, and what they tried to do by innovating with technology, but I reckon those are the core three reasons the war was ****, and not the generals.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Walsingham

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, may not have been you linking it, it was a while ago.

 

My main reasons for disagreeing are based largely on a disagreement with point 1. Something like the Gallipoli campaign could have worked and could have knocked the Ottomans out of the war early, freeing up all the Russian troops in the Caucasus and opening up the Balkans and A-H, but it required careful planning (which it got to a large extent) and execution by competent, aggressive and committed leaders, which it didn't in almost all cases. What it did get was a hopelessly optimistic naval only first try followed up by a ground invasion that lacked imagination and which missed multiple opportunities to achieve pretty much anything due to overly conservative, passive and unimaginative leadership. What successes were gained were not followed up on*.

 

The general idea was decent enough, and the allies should have used their naval superiority in the Med and even North Sea to far better effect than they did- more Zeebrugge type raids, landings in the Levant or south Turkey. But they did little to nothing with any imagination afterwards, it was like if in WW2 the Dieppe Raid meant no Torch, no Sicily, no Italy, no D-Day. Also, for all that the allies were clearly winning by late 1918 the death knell for Imperial Germany was the naval blockade which ultimately broke A-H and them.

 

*Call me a rabid nationalist if you want, but William Malone should have been the man who shortened WW1 by two years, Mustafa Kemal certainly thought so.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm not a 'British Nationalist.' Cut it anyway you like, but in the UK that's a pretty loaded term. I'm mildly patriotic and get pissed off with chippy-former-colonials occasionally. That doesn't make me a nationalist. Then again, I'd rather be a nationalist than a no-nation commie or a globalization smoothie.

 

Edit: as for the Congress of Vienna - a crude analogy but the post-WW2 settlement brought peace among the great powers. Yet we still had lots and lots of wars from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq 1 & 2.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[BruceVC]

 

 

Edit: as for the Congress of Vienna - a crude analogy but the post-WW2 settlement brought peace among the great powers. Yet we still had lots and lots of wars from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq 1 & 2.

 

Yes and the primary reason we didn't see war declared between the USA and USSR was because of the threat of nuclear holocaust but as you mentioned they did fight various ideological proxy wars throughout Africa and other continents.

[Walsingham]

 

My main reasons for disagreeing are based largely on a disagreement with point 1. Something like the Gallipoli campaign could have worked and could have knocked the Ottomans out of the war early, freeing up all the Russian troops in the Caucasus and opening up the Balkans and A-H, but it required careful planning (which it got to a large extent) and execution by competent, aggressive and committed leaders, which it didn't in almost all cases. What it did get was a hopelessly optimistic naval only first try followed up by a ground invasion that lacked imagination and which missed multiple opportunities to achieve pretty much anything due to overly conservative, passive and unimaginative leadership. What successes were gained were not followed up on*.

 

Understandable perspective. And of course the ANZACs bled white at Gallipoli. It would be horrendous if one had to admit that the undeniable courage they showed at Gallipoli was a pointless sideshow. That a breakout in the Turkish heartland was so unlikely as to be near fantasy. And that the most they could achieve would be a funneling of more Russian bodies into a military effort that was utterly disjointed.

 

A second front strategy was tried, with vastly greater technological (land craft, mulberry harbours, paratroop landings) and staff know-how (bigger military colleges, revolution in military thinking post-war) in WW2. But in the end it pinned down Allied forces as much as German ones.

[Mor]

We should not think ourselves inherently psychologically superior to our ancestors or somehow resistant to the nationalistic lures which created WW1. Today we are (virtually) the same human beings as in 1914, with our only advantage being our knowledge of history, our experience regarding the circumstances which created WW1 (and by extension WW2). The only thing which keeps us from doing WW1 again is that benefit of hindsight, and the introduction of humanist principles. We should make the most of that knowledge and not head down the slippery slope of nationalism and so-called "patriotism" again, repeating old mistakes.

I agree. You would think that with the advantage of history and experience on our side, we there would not have the same problems and yet history tend to repeat it self because of hubris of men. Clouded by hindsight from historical theory, believing they found the universal and know how to make it happen, making the usual mistake of trying to over correct, playing "armchair generals" thinking that they are best informed of all the parameters of the situation and or loosing sight of human element on their gameboard or get overly attached it. It is a very delicate balance balance to play. If only making history was as simple as reading it. So yes, we should not think ourselves inherently psychologically superior to our ancestors.

 

Btw, I used to help translate psychiatric meta analyse studies(yes with my crappy english!), the amount of statistical inference and Methodology limitations make you cringe every time someone cite the title of any study, and the fact that some treatment methods are critically changed almost every few years doesn't come as surprise, especially in today rapidly changing society in so many aspects.

 

Also personally, I don't see Nationalism is any different from most things in life(i.e. should be take in moderation), in fact IMO there is something wrong with those who don't develop such sense of identity, same goes for those who don't have healthy attachment with their community, friends, family and or anything that has a prominent effect throughout their life's on every level. Little appreciation of one's background/history/ancestors and the desire to contribute, at the very least show that you care.

[Zoraptor]

I'm mildly patriotic and get pissed off with chippy-former-colonials occasionally.

r00fles!

 

Edit: as for the Congress of Vienna - a crude analogy but the post-WW2 settlement brought peace among the great powers. Yet we still had lots and lots of wars from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq 1 & 2.

I specifically picked the conflicts in which great powers fought each other- and the ones which set up WW1.

 

Understandable perspective. And of course the ANZACs bled white at Gallipoli. It would be horrendous if one had to admit that the undeniable courage they showed at Gallipoli was a pointless sideshow.

As it turned out it was, but I don't have any particular problem admitting such things. Paschendaele, though less well known here than Gallipoli was actually considerably worse and was utterly pointless.

 

And that the most they could achieve would be a funneling of more Russian bodies into a military effort that was utterly disjointed.

Nah, the thing I find really disappointing about the Gallipoli/ Dardanelles campaign is that it could have worked, with better co-ordination and leadership. Some of the landings were utter bloodbaths but some went off perfectly and when pressed home with flair, good sense and commitment successes were had.

 

Realistically, Gallipoli failed primarily when the first naval only attack signalled intentions and needed a combined attack from the start. But even after that if pressed home with elan the OE could easily have lost most or all its European possessions, which would almost certainly mean no Bulgaria for the CP at the very least, their capital potentially within artillery range and a host of other advantages.

 

Specifically on the Russians though, they performed well and were well led in the Caucasus. A significant consistent allied presence in the European OE means most likely no Kemal to stiffen the line and fewer troops there.

 

A second front strategy was tried, with vastly greater technological (land craft, mulberry harbours, paratroop landings) and staff know-how (bigger military colleges, revolution in military thinking post-war) in WW2. But in the end it pinned down Allied forces as much as German ones.

Really? The only one I can think of in WW2 that resulted in a stalemate for even medium term was Italy, and even there it was an amphibious attack that knocked Italy out of the war. Torch/ Sicily/ D-Day were all massive and relatively quick successes, and Dieppe, the one unqualified failure, was also by far the smallest scale and most ambitious- and that isn't even counting the Pacific ones. Plus of course the Allies could afford being pinned down far more than the Germans given the manpower disparities.

[Mor]

Looks like recent weeks Russia has stepped up supplies of military gear to Syria.[link]

 

While at this point of the conflict, I welcome Russian military support to Assad since they(and Iran) already screwed up the situation past the point of no return. However, with the peace talks scheduled for next week, I am wondering if the talks are just a for show, I am interested to learn what is the long term plan here for Assad alawite minority to control the poor Sunni majority.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Mor

[Monte Carlo]

^ Long term plan? Ha ha ha.

 

Western electoral cycles don't allow for them. Assad can't stay in power. As long as he does, the worse the insurgency will become and the FSA elements not in thrall to Jihadists will be marginalised. Can you imagine the UN putting boots on the ground for any reason, let alone one keeping Assad in power?

 

No, neither can I.

 

The region is screwed. If it wasn't for the ISIS plan to destablilise Lebanon and Turkey in order to collapse Israel we could just leave the place to rot. But we can't.

 

The whole region ain't worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier. Or was it Fusilier?

 

There is no happy ending here.

[BruceVC]

Looks like recent weeks Russia has stepped up supplies of military gear to Syria.[link]

 

While at this point of the conflict, I welcome Russian military support to Assad since they(and Iran) already screwed up the situation past the point of no return. However, with the peace talks scheduled for next week, I am wondering if the talks are just a for show, I am interested to learn what is the long term plan here for Assad alawite minority to control the poor Sunni majority.

 

Increased Russian military intervention or aid wouldn't help the situation at all

 

I am optimistic that the peace talks could have positive results. I see that the Western backed Syrian opposition doesn't want to attend the peace talks because Iran was invited. But we need Iran there as they are primary sponsors of Assad. I am of the opinion that Iran is prepared to assist in brokering a truce because sanctions are being lifted against them and there is a real deal around there Uranium enrichment where they feel they are not being treated unfairly. I did predict that if you can get Iran back into the international community this will bode well for conflicts throughout the region.

 

The only concern I have is Assad may want to stay in power in some sort of coalition government and I don't see Syrian opposition accepting this. Maybe he can go into exile into Iran but I doubt he would accept this so we will have to see what transpires

Edited January 20, 2014 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

^

 

The region is screwed. .

 

Have I ever mentioned that you a pessimist. No not a pragmatist or realist. You need to see the glass as half full sometimes Monte

[LadyCrimson]

Closed for length.

Feel free to make a new thread to continue to discuss all things Russia.