Ideal Social Engineering Settings

[ManOWar2]

[SIZE=1] World knows what's happening in US - we're better informed about yourselves than you do, so dont try to prove opposite and claim that you're still one of the most democratical countries or something equally nonsensible..

Happy to he hear that. Cause when I'm trying to argue with americans, most of the time they respond me " bah your canadian, you only exist cause we allow you to exist"

see what I mean about ignorance.

[Ka Plewy]

see what I mean about ignorance.

No nation has a monopoly on ignorant citizens. Nor any ideology, for that matter.

[Chaos Theory]

Certain nations are closer than others, however. Reference: Shari'a (or its other spellings).

[GeoModder]

Don't forget the Old Testament... there are christians taking that stuff literally.

[binTravkin]

Ok, let's stop this feud for the sake of relations.

I think one thing is clear - there are people who like US, and who dislike.
And whatever the other tells, they're gonna to continue to do so.
So it's no use to argue.

If someone wants to judge US, he should take in count that ~46% of US peope dislike where it's going (aka policies of Bush and his ilk).
I dunno history so well, but my opinion is that this number is increasing.
So many people inside and outside it hates the things going on.
Judge yourselves as you want, for me its quite obvious what's happening..

Latvia is not the best country in the world, in fact it is quite poor and undeveloped compared to US, but people here are aware what their government is up to (steal money and make up rules for their business) and only believe that it will do something good if it already is done.
And we dont believe that Latvia has done just about all the good things in the world.
We know we're not perfect and we accept it instead of babbling that we had "pioneered democracy" or something equally ahistorical..

And what makes Latvia and most other East-european countries unique is that during the last century they were the oppressed no oppressors - they were able to compare different viewpoints and have become quite immune from the official propaganda - we just have had too much of it to believe any more.

Our historians can't say USSR really rocked or Hitler was the best guy ever, because there always be someone right near who would kick their ass for that
(just because his daddy/grandmother died in Gulag or was shot by Germans).

I dont say USSR is good or US is good or Nazis were good.
I just say that to believe that D-Day was something important is foolish at least for a strategical viewpoint.
And people actually believe it and other **** like that.

Its like when you see (in SMACX) that other faction is about to get eliminated and want to grab a piece for yourself to have honour for being "victorious" and secure some bases from using them as airbases against you..

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin
No comments.

That's what all the world thinks about US, only some individuals from in there try to prove it's not so.

If they're reading this, my best advice to them is to not waste their time trying to argue about it - it's simply obvious.

World knows what's happening in US - we're better informed about yourselves than you do, so dont try to prove opposite and claim that you're still one of the most democratical countries or something equally nonsensible..

Seriously, how long have you been off your medication?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Don't forget the Old Testament... there are christians taking that stuff literally.

Unfortunately not in stone tablet form.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Unfortunately not in stone tablet form.

I guess there's just enough common sense to not try to digest it in brick form.

[binTravkin]

Seriously, how long have you been off your medication?

For all my life. Seriously.
And, seriously, how long have you been off your propaganda?
Have you seen any other way than the famous "American Way"?

[Ka Plewy]

[SIZE=1] I just say that to believe that D-Day was something important is foolish at least for a strategical viewpoint.
And people actually believe it and other **** like that.

I fail to see how this relates to ideological discussion. Regardless of the might of the Russian military at the time of D-Day, D-Day is still very important. Without the invasion of Fortress Euroupa the war would've been protracted. Remember, Hitler kept forces committed to the western front to prevent invasion Without threat of invasion and the ensuing invasion, some of those forces could've been thrown at USSR. If you are truly a student of history as you claim to be, you need to remember that the historian's most important tool is the context of events. If you distill the event away from the other events surrounding it you can arrive at just about any conclusion (which you're doing quite well). So claiming D-Day was not important is completely silly and just demonstrates your lack of serious academic research, casting your entire history of posts into similar light. How can I trust the statements you make, when you can't even understand the importance of historical events? Note, I'm not arguing that D-Day is the most important event of WWII, I'm arguing that D-Day is an important event, period. Other important events of WWII: Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, Pearl Harbor, Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge), Midway, North Africa, there are more, no doubt and all must be taken into context.

I feel it needs to be said that your plea to end this argument/discussion is completely disingenuous, because if you really wanted to end it you would've made a 10 word plea (or not responded at all!), rather than a 350 word essay defending your position.

Regards,
Ka Plewy

[binTravkin]

Yeah, and taking into context, especially the numbers involved, I see not much more importance in D-Day than invasion of Italia..
The latter at least brought Italians out of war..

And you forget to mention Kursk. If you compared German and USSR numbers before and after that, Im sure you would get the "context" Im talking about.
IMHO It was the last battle for Germany, after it Hitlers fate was decided.

Actually someone else is cropping D-Day out of context making it "the glorious and decisive Allied victory over Germany".
For me it was a marauder run, as Germany was defeated by that time already.

If you read my "essay" more carefully instead of saying all what I said was "silly", you could comment it..

Im not silly, just disgusted how some people believe in the "White Knight" figure of US. If you read this thread from the start, you could see more stupid things mentioned here as what Im saying.
And not by me, but by a few amercans, who think they know history.

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by binTravkin
And you forget to mention Kursk.

I left many unsaid, which is why I said "there are more, no doubt." I'm not the only one who has trouble reading, apparently.

You play the most common of games in an argument/discussion. When your ability to support your statements comes into question, you switch the argument around, or add unrelated conjecture. Your statements are not substantiated, (mine aren't either for that matter). However, I seriously doubt that you can substantiate your claims. I challenge you to do so, with serious academic research.

Note, you've proven my point, you don't want to end the discussion/argument, you want to win it. Well, the gauntlet has been cast. It's up to you to win it. Should you respond without serious academic research, you only serve to reinforce my point. If you do provide proof, I will gladly provide my proof (I have at least 30 books on WWII, while not exhaustive by any measure, should at least demonstrate I'm well read, and before you nitpick that I've read only 30 books, please note I have read many more than that!).

[binTravkin]

I left many unsaid, which is why I said "there are more, no doubt." I'm not the only one who has trouble reading, apparently.

You play the most common of games in an argument/discussion. When your ability to support your statements comes into question, you switch the argument around, or add unrelated conjecture. Your statements are not substantiated, (mine aren't either for that matter). However, I seriously doubt that you can substantiate your claims. I challenge you to do so, with serious academic research.

Note, you've proven my point, you don't want to end the discussion/argument, you want to win it. Well, the gauntlet has been cast. It's up to you to win it. Should you respond without serious academic research, you only serve to reinforce my point. If you do provide proof, I will gladly provide my proof (I have at least 30 books on WWII, while not exhaustive by any measure, should at least demonstrate I'm well read, and before you nitpick that I've read only 30 books, please note I have read many more than that!).

Well, yeah. Ok. I understood. I suck you know all etc..
Maybe my english is not so good to cover all your topics, but I will just point out that I found 3 topics in your last post - "context", "events", "my essay".

I answered to all and what I've got in answer?
That Im playing some game.
I play no game.
You play the game of " 'forgetting' things" in the first place and the game of "not answering, just making accuses" in the 2nd place.
Read back in this thread, you're not the first to do so..

And bout reinforcing your point - I will reinforce it further by resuming from this thread.
Your point is always having a one way ticket when someone touches your patriotism..

[Ka Plewy]

Few things for binTravkin
Patriotism <> Ideology (context of this discussion). If you were questioning my patriotism, I hadn't noticed. I thought this was an ideological discussion
Nowhere, have you given proof for your claims. None. What. So. Ever.
Your English is good enough to carry an argument, and score you some points, but when points are scored against you, you immediately say your english isn't very good, and that you suck. Self-deprecation may work in a conversational argument, however in a written forum, it does not.
Ultimately, all you do is make assertions, when someone else makes contradictory assertions, you don't necessarily respond to those, you instead extend the argument into other directions, each one, arguably, more fantastic than the previous.
If I'm not the only one saying this, then perhaps, just perhaps, there might be a shred of Truth to what we're saying.
I never brought patriotism into the argument. I responded to a comment about the parts all the Allies played in WWII. You discounted the US part, while placing the entire winning of the war on the USSR. Pulease. When I point out that the Russians had considerable help in that process from the US, I was ignored, and the argument went into alleged lies the US government attempts to perpetrate on the world, and its own citizens. (And how the entire world knows they are lies, except for US citizens). PuhLEASE!
I would desperately love to see some of your historical evidence, besides your assertions.
Back up your assertions with some evidence!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Yeah, and taking into context, especially the numbers involved, I see not much more importance in D-Day than invasion of Italia..
The latter at least brought Italians out of war..

And you forget to mention Kursk. If you compared German and USSR numbers before and after that, Im sure you would get the "context" Im talking about.
IMHO It was the last battle for Germany, after it Hitlers fate was decided.

Actually someone else is cropping D-Day out of context making it "the glorious and decisive Allied victory over Germany".
For me it was a marauder run, as Germany was defeated by that time already.

If you read my "essay" more carefully instead of saying all what I said was "silly", you could comment it..

Im not silly, just disgusted how some people believe in the "White Knight" figure of US. If you read this thread from the start, you could see more stupid things mentioned here as what Im saying.
And not by me, but by a few amercans, who think they know history.

D-Day was much more important than the invasion of Italy for several reasons. Getting the Italians out of the war was of dubious value, as they did more for the allied cause by their unpredictable behavior then they contributed in combat capability on numerous occasions. The small number of German troops necessary to defend the small front made up of good defensive terrain managed to tie up inordinate numbers of the Western allies few combat experienced formations, and did so at a profit in terms of casualties.

D-Day on the other hand threatened to bring France back into the war. It also forced the Germans to defend a huge land area which was made up of largely good offensive terrain, which forced them to use their valuable panzer formations under a withering umbrella of allied air power operating out of England and later France itself. The absence of these formations had a huge impact on Soviet operations, culminating in the destruction of Army Group Center, an offensive which was planned to coincide with the landings and one which would have been impossible (in terms of the great success that it achieved) had the panzers been on hand to react and stabilize the line. It immediately brought the Western Allies closer to Germany's production centers than the Soviets were, and by September had culminated in the loss of most of France, the destruction by attrition of the panzer formations sent against the Western Allies and the destruction of all the other line formations in the West by encirclement.

Kursk was a set piece battle which was not important in terms of geography. For the Soviets it was a defensive battle which their excellent intelligence allowed them to prepare for for months ahead of time. It was a battle of attrition which destroyed the better part of a year's worth of German tank / crew production, but the complete lack of strategic goals made the outcome more a question of Hitler's strategic incompetence than a triumph of Soviet arms. It was a large strategic mistake by the Germans and the Soviets made the most of it with the operational skill and tactical competence. The effect was felt in 1944 when the German losses contributed to their collapse on both fronts, but there was no important immediate gain in territory as the Germans still had enough force to hold their lines in the East until D-Day forced them to transfer assets to the West.

As for Germany being defeated by 1944, as a strategist I'd say the Germany was probably defeated by the time they declared war on the Soviet Union and certainly by the time (only 6 months later) when the declared war on the United States. They were at war with 3 powers who all produced more aircraft than they did. In fact the U.S. produced more aircraft than the British and the Soviets combined. The Soviets had at least twice as many tanks as the Germans at the start of the war, half of which were the equal or superior of any German tank, and they maintained a large advantage in production throughout the war over the Germans.

Were it not for the war with Japan the Germans would have been finished at least a year earlier. I encourage you to read about all phases of the war with an open mind as I have done for over 35 years. You are correct in your admiration for the Soviet's determination and sacrifices during the war, as well as your admiration of Soviet skill at the level of strategy and the highest operational levels. But your paranoid delusions of Western cupidity have only a grain of truth to them. I've seen them before for many years, and they remain exactly the same now as they did during the cold war. There are similar narratives in the West, such as the fantasy that we could have walked over the Soviet forces in the immediate post war period, and you'll find me arguing the opposite on the rare occasion when those arguments are put forward in Off Topic.

Your knowledge of history even when we limit the discussion to WW2 is a lot less complete than you think, and it is obvious to me who has read more and given more pertinent thought to the issue. Your knowledge is at best mediocre for someone who wants to discuss WW2 on these forums while your bias is at least as bad as the worst of those who you castigate for bias. That isn't a good portent for your ability to catch up in the knowledge department as while reading is important it is no substitute for the ability to judge and use the data with an open mind.