Stop the America-bashing!

[Spiffor]

BTW spiffor
I hope you understand my little jest was not aimed at you in any way. It was merely an illustration.

No problem. I attacked the bad image of the Americans abroad, in a general point of view, it was not targetted at you, as you're not arrogant/ignorant, even if you strongly support US policy. You answered with the bad image of Europeans abroad, without targetting me. We think the same way

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Spiffor

No problem. I attacked the bad image of the Americans abroad, in a general point of view, it was not targetted at you, as you're not arrogant/ignorant, even if you strongly support US policy. You answered with the bad image of Europeans abroad, without targetting me. We think the same way

One point that occurred to me that is relevant to your post was that Americans have almost no access to viewpoints other than their own. Those with internet access can search out such information, but given that most Americans only speak english, their choices are extremely limited. This relative ignorance of other cultures is much more pronounced here than in Europe (for example) and it influences American policy choices. I am personally aware of some stunningly bad interpretations of events that occurred in the early 80's that I attributed to this problem.

[godinex]

You are rigth. THe principal problem of the north americans is only the continious contact with the north americans (because I´m an american habitant too.)

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by godinex
You are rigth. THe principal problem of the north americans is only the continious contact with the north americans (because I´m an american habitant too.)

But I think that you yourself have an advantage in this matter because of your Spanish culture as well as the anglo-culture.

[siredgar]

I'm glad some sense of civility has returned to the thread.

[CRAZY]

Now your talking spence. I will have to agree with your whole last statement. i would even say to an extent that it is the same here in Canada although not quite so pronounced.

[dunk]

Originally posted by lorddread


A brief History Lesson

Germany was forced into war with Russia for its very survival. As soon as Stalin signed the NonAgression Pact with Germany, he Informed his generals that they had 1 year to gear up for war. Stalin used the treaty as a way to stay out of the war until he had the forces to attack Germany.


Thus endith the lesson


KATN

I disagree. I've seen documentaries and read in the Time Magazine WWII Atlas (I am unsure of the title exactly, but I'm almost 100% sure it was done by Time Magazine) giving evidence to this theory:

Hitler's goal was to conquer the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to colonize it with German people. He signed the Non-aggression pact to prevent the USSRs involvement until he was ready. Hitler assumed Britain and France wouldn't care and also he thought Britain would actually aid him (being that British are a good part Germanic origin). When Britain and France declared war over the invasion of Poland, Hitler was confused. But, he didn't worry about the British and the French. He simply rolled into France and bombed Britain. He figured Britain would either surrender or just make peace. Then, it was time to roll over the USSR. Which he did very well. But, he made the same mistake Napolean did. He neglected to provide his troops winter equipment. So, the USSR had a much easier time of countering the German invasion.

The German hate machine (all those "wonderful" people like Himmler, Goering, Hitler, Eichmann, etc.) viewed Slavs (most Eastern Europeans) as just a tiny bit above the Jews. The German army advanced and the (I forget the word in German) Death Squads followed to kill any "undesirables". <- That word was used in the book. "Undesirables" included not only Jews, but Slavs as well.

This is my info.

[Coracle]

Stalin bent over backwards to appease Hitler before the invasion.
He offered nice trade deals, kept all his promises, didn't allow air mission to recon German territory, and would not even let his generals fortify or pull back a little from the border. They got creamed when Hitler did attack.

If Stalin's plan was as stated, there is no reason he would have ordered all this.

I am not defending Stalin - a worse mas murderer than Hitler.

[Beren]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Beren

You've cited one source (for which I congratulate you (no sarcasm)) for your viewpoint. IF such numbers are accurate, I would agree that the civilian casualties from American bombing are too high. But let me make a few comments:

This is not a scientific report. I'm a scientist, thats not science.
The report makes no distinction between civilians and for example Taliban or Al queda forces. Since they dont wear uniforms they could easily be counted as "civilians".
Given the large number of reporters from around the world that are present in Afghanistan, wouldnt you think that someone else would have reported this story. Given its potential significance it would be repeated ad infinitum by many news agencies. If there were only american reporters in Afghanistan you might make the claim that they're part of a coverup. But that is not the case.

First of all: this is a scientific report: By Mark Herold of the University of New Hampshire. You want to critize the report, give him a call (since you know the science world so well, it shouldn't be a problem: they are bound to have a connection with the university at your work site.)
Secondly: it does make a distinction: military victims of the bombing are not accounted.
Thirdly: There were next to no reporters in Taliban controlled Afghanistan on the time of the bombing. Now there are reporters around there, but now no more people are dying.
Fourtly: this report is not given attention, because the most of us simply don't care how much people died in Afghanistan.
Fifthly: The number given was only what was provable. The real number, Herold says, is probably somewhere between 4000 and 5000.

[Dauphin]

When Britain and France declared war over the invasion of Poland, Hitler was confused

I've seen a couple of documentaries that say that Hitler felt cheated by the circumstances surrounding the annexation of the Sudetanland because it was too easy. He apparently wanted friction over the issue so that he could start a the war then.

He wanted to get the situation with Britain and France resolved before the invasion of Russia, mainly humiliate the French and force Britain into an honourable peace. Once Britain and France were neutralised, diplomatically or militarily he could concentrate on the eastward expansion. When Britain didn't surrender/sue for peace, he was irate, and went ahead with the Russian invasion anyway.

I doubt we will ever know the inner thoughts of a madman, even Hitler said he would never let anyone know what he was thinking, or why he was acting in a particular fashion.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by SpencerH

While Heinz Guderian did visit the tank training facilities in Kazan, its pretty clear that the works of Captain B.H. Liddell Hart and Major-General J.F.C. Fuller were the catalyst for Guderian's ideas on tank warfare.

That's not completely true. Hart's theories played less of a role, although Hart changed the English edition of Panzer Leader to make himself look good.

The edition of Panzer Leader that I have states:

When in 1929 [Guderian] became convinced that tanks in combination with other weapons would revolutionize land warfare, it was from deep studies of history, recent British experiments, and the writings chiefly of British General JFC Fuller, not to the same extent as those of BH Liddell Hart, regardless of the third paragraph on page 20 (inserted in the English-language edition of Panzer Leader at Liddell Hart's own dogged suggestion) where Guderian acknowledges his "debt" to Liddell Hart.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Beren

First of all: this is a scientific report: By Mark Herold of the University of New Hampshire. You want to critize the report, give him a call (since you know the science world so well, it shouldn't be a problem: they are bound to have a connection with the university at your work site.)

I did check him out at the UNH to make sure he was legit. The fact that he works at a university doesnt make this science. Literary works of fiction or non-fiction are not science. Tags like "scientific report" are added to such works to improve their apparent veracity.

Secondly: it does make a distinction: military victims of the bombing are not accounted.

It was hard for me to get through the entire diatribe, but I couldnt find any distinction made by the author. Here's one example.

1. The Taliban claimed the raid killed 11 people;
2. The Pentagon said the strike missed both the hospital and another Red Crescent building nearby, and commented "it was a legitimate terrorist target, intentionally struck.."
3. Journalist later saw a large crater in the center of the clinic and hospital vehicles crushed by collapsed masonry. One doctor reported 15 dead and 25 seriously injured.32
Faced with such discrepancies, to me the most credible source is the doctor: 15 died. .

i.e. no distinction between military and civilian casualties.

Thirdly: There were next to no reporters in Taliban controlled Afghanistan on the time of the bombing. Now there are reporters around there, but now no more people are dying

You dont think that Geraldo Rivera would love to get his hands on a story about the thousands of uncounted civilian casualties?

Where are the numbers coming from?

My assumption is that reporters, news story editors, and national-level media outlets try to report as accurately as possible given the resources at their disposal. For example, if The Times of India, reports an incident, I am assuming that an editor judged the account to be accurate.

I have personal experience that that is utterly false. Every day during the Iran-Iraq war their newsagencies would report the most outlandish lies. Despite what is quoted above the author subsequently states

I have avoided granting greater reliability to U.S. or British sources -- the ethnocentric bias.

So what are his main sources?

Specifically, I have relied upon Indian daily newspapers [especially The Times of India, considered the equivalent of The New York Times], three Pakistani dailies, the Singapore News, British, Canadian and Australian [Sydney Morning Herald, Herald Sun] newspapers, the Afghan Islamic Press [AIP based in Peshawar], the Agence France Press [AFP], the South African Broadcasting Corp. News [ www.sabcnews.com ], Pakistan News Service [PNS], and Reuters, BBC News Online, Al Jazeera,

Not too ethnocentric eh?

I searched through about ten of the links on the site for some "hard" reporting. I only stories about personal tragedies and quotes that cited this same work as their source.

Fourtly: this report is not given attention, because the most of us simply don't care how much people died in Afghanistan.
Fifthly: The number given was only what was provable. The real number, Herold says, is probably somewhere between 4000 and 5000.

Beren.

I can understand why you might think this is true of Americans (even though its not). But do you really accept that the Europeans dont care?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Tingkai

That's not completely true. Hart's theories played less of a role, although Hart changed the English edition of Panzer Leader to make himself look good.

The edition of Panzer Leader that I have states:

When in 1929 [Guderian] became convinced that tanks in combination with other weapons would revolutionize land warfare, it was from deep studies of history, recent British experiments, and the writings chiefly of British General JFC Fuller, not to the same extent as those of BH Liddell Hart, regardless of the third paragraph on page 20 (inserted in the English-language edition of Panzer Leader at Liddell Hart's own dogged suggestion) where Guderian acknowledges his "debt" to Liddell Hart.

Are you claiming that Capt. Hart altered Guderian's text? My version is probably a little older than yours and the pages are different. In any case, Guderian clearly states the influence of the British authors (that appears to be around 1923-24). Other web sources state that he translated those works, suggesting he considered them quite important.

[Tingkai]

I'm not making the claim. The quote was from an introduction to the Penguin edition of Panzer Leader written by Kenneth Macksey in 1996.

The paragraph in question begin: "I learned from them the concentration of armour, as employed in the battle of Cambrai. Further, it was Liddell Hart who emphasized the use of armoured forces for long-range strokes..."

Macksey claims that Hart inserted that paragraph into the book.

[Beren]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I can understand why you might think this is true of Americans (even though its not). But do you really accept that the Europeans dont care?

I would like to see it otherwise, but frankly: yes, the most of the Europeans don't care either how much people died. They only care if there is video. Images have a much larger impact than just plain numbers.

And BTW: Maybe you are right and the report is not very accurate or indeed very unaccurate, but for me it is hard to believe that a (English) newspaper with quite a reputation for objectivity (The Guardian) did not check the report. (NRC (THE Dutch sophisticated daily paper) published it too, I don't know 'bout other papers.) I talked to an editor of the foreign page of NRC and he told me that Herold double-checked his information.