Already posted a quote from the title of the article and sentences in the article that says yer wrong, juniorVilham wrote:
"Unfortunately, the truth is more complex. The Russians, for example, are clear that the Red Army played the dominant role in the defeat of the Reich,"
The article doesn't even claim the Russians won the war. It says they defeated the Reich. L2R. You are arguing against nothing!!!
Go get 'em, tiger!Vilham wrote:
I get a hell of a lot more sex than you
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-11 21:02:26)
OK OK nobody is a fool and we all need a reality check. Ad Homenim isn't going to help us evaluate Davies' position. Age, lack of published crediential = irrelevant. Solid questions or arguments = why I am here to hear others analysis of any given subject.
We must be very specific to make sense. Some of our points are like apples and oranges. Some are confusing. Here are a few I need to understand.
How can a book about Russia (not USSR) make claims to defeat Germany (not the Axis) when all of those were integrated vertically, horizontally and everywhichway I can think of. That Russia did not have significant presence in the Pacific doesn't talk to the topic. If Russia Beat Germany then how? Now we begin to measure, weigh and balance all of the HOWs. Money, Time, Weather, Terrain, Alliances, Order of Battle, etc etc etc.. Where did the means to stand up and fight a technologically superior army come from?
I hope I am being clear. If you count what the Russians lost (however horrible it was) against how much Germany lost (however horiible it was) you are NEVER going to convince me of anything except that you think you can make a point by ignoring a significant majority of the factors leading to victory conditions.
The article /fails period, the book may not /fail. This is a fascinating topic so I am getting the book to find out whether Davies is a genius or a knucklehead, or somewhere in the middle like the rest of us.
I am sorry, please no offense meant, but talking about battalions, best tanks, air wings, individual pilots and South Park, while all interesting cannot make a case for a regional outcome subset of a global war m8s, it can't.
I want to see how Davies handles the underwriting of the Soviet War Machine '41-45, the collateral effects of a multifront war. Good God the USSR, US, UK, Axis were fighting the equivalent of maybe 6 regional conflicts, something NO SINGLE COUNTRY'S ARMY CAN DO EVEN TODAY!!! (without obvious self-destructive build up) WWII was huge. If Davies doesn't account for this as the article suggests then /fail by ignorance.
If his book is to remind us that Russia/USSR got hammered with a bat in a metal hurt locker then I am already with that.
We must be very specific to make sense. Some of our points are like apples and oranges. Some are confusing. Here are a few I need to understand.
How can a book about Russia (not USSR) make claims to defeat Germany (not the Axis) when all of those were integrated vertically, horizontally and everywhichway I can think of. That Russia did not have significant presence in the Pacific doesn't talk to the topic. If Russia Beat Germany then how? Now we begin to measure, weigh and balance all of the HOWs. Money, Time, Weather, Terrain, Alliances, Order of Battle, etc etc etc.. Where did the means to stand up and fight a technologically superior army come from?
I hope I am being clear. If you count what the Russians lost (however horrible it was) against how much Germany lost (however horiible it was) you are NEVER going to convince me of anything except that you think you can make a point by ignoring a significant majority of the factors leading to victory conditions.
The article /fails period, the book may not /fail. This is a fascinating topic so I am getting the book to find out whether Davies is a genius or a knucklehead, or somewhere in the middle like the rest of us.
I am sorry, please no offense meant, but talking about battalions, best tanks, air wings, individual pilots and South Park, while all interesting cannot make a case for a regional outcome subset of a global war m8s, it can't.
I want to see how Davies handles the underwriting of the Soviet War Machine '41-45, the collateral effects of a multifront war. Good God the USSR, US, UK, Axis were fighting the equivalent of maybe 6 regional conflicts, something NO SINGLE COUNTRY'S ARMY CAN DO EVEN TODAY!!! (without obvious self-destructive build up) WWII was huge. If Davies doesn't account for this as the article suggests then /fail by ignorance.
If his book is to remind us that Russia/USSR got hammered with a bat in a metal hurt locker then I am already with that.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-11 21:39:12)
Great comeback. The sort of thing that people who think they are mature but aren't post.lowing wrote:
Now I know you are a kid, juniorVilham wrote:
Haha uni a kid, the only childish thing im going to say is suck my balls, I get a hell of a lot more sex than you in your single 30-40 life style. Clearly it DOESN'T make you think.
You might want to read about 5 posts above as to disproving you.
You are arguing about the book, this topic is about the book and the author Norman Davies. If you want to argue about the artical make your own topic. If you aren't arguing about the book WTF are you arguing about, because NO ONE but you is talking about the article.
I know a hell of a lot on the subject. Ive read multiple books on the topic and have covered it in detail as part of my A levels.
The book if searched on internet book shops has a description, that description comes no where close to what the article says, as I told you guys about 4 pages ago, the article DOES /fail, but this isn't about an article, it's about his book... which doesn't suggest the things lowing is imagining it to say. I read the introduction yesterday in a book store quickly and it is simply about the Soviet campaign and how this lead to the USSR.OpsChief wrote:
OK OK nobody is a fool and we all need a reality check. Ad Homenim isn't going to help us evaluate Davies' position. Age, lack of published crediential = irrelevant. Solid questions or arguments = why I am here to hear others analysis of any given subject.
We must be very specific to make sense. Some of our points are like apples and oranges. Some are confusing. Here are a few I need to understand.
How can a book about Russia (not USSR) make claims to defeat Germany (not the Axis) when all of those were integrated vertically, horizontally and everywhichway I can think of. That Russia did not have significant presence in the Pacific doesn't talk to the topic. If Russia Beat Germany then how? Now we begin to measure, weigh and balance all of the HOWs. Money, Time, Weather, Terrain, Alliances, Order of Battle, etc etc etc.. Where did the means to stand up and fight a technologically superior army come from?
I hope I am being clear. If you count what the Russians lost (however horrible it was) against how much Germany lost (however horiible it was) you are NEVER going to convince me of anything except that you think you can make a point by ignoring a significant majority of the factors leading to victory conditions.
The article /fails period, the book may not /fail. This is a fascinating topic so I am getting the book to find out whether Davies is a genius or a knucklehead, or somewhere in the middle like the rest of us.
I am sorry, please no offense meant, but talking about battalions, best tanks, air wings, individual pilots and South Park, while all interesting cannot make a case for a regional outcome subset of a global war m8s, it can't.
I want to see how Davies handles the underwriting of the Soviet War Machine '41-45, the collateral effects of a multifront war. Good God the USSR, US, UK, Axis were fighting the equivalent of maybe 6 regional conflicts, something NO SINGLE COUNTRY'S ARMY CAN DO EVEN TODAY!!! (without obvious self-destructive build up) WWII was huge. If Davies doesn't account for this as the article suggests then /fail by ignorance.
If his book is to remind us that Russia/USSR got hammered with a bat in a metal hurt locker then I am already with that.
It wasn't a "come back", it was a confirmation....................................................junior sex kittenVilham wrote:
Great comeback. The sort of thing that people who think they are mature but aren't post.lowing wrote:
Now I know you are a kid, juniorVilham wrote:
Haha uni a kid, the only childish thing im going to say is suck my balls, I get a hell of a lot more sex than you in your single 30-40 life style. Clearly it DOESN'T make you think.
You might want to read about 5 posts above as to disproving you.
You are arguing about the book, this topic is about the book and the author Norman Davies. If you want to argue about the artical make your own topic. If you aren't arguing about the book WTF are you arguing about, because NO ONE but you is talking about the article.
I know a hell of a lot on the subject. Ive read multiple books on the topic and have covered it in detail as part of my A levels.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-12 04:13:43)
US won the Pacific Theatre, besides I don't know why did you guys brought that issue in this topic. When you talk about the people Russia lost, you can't give credit to the Germans for that, since a lot of Russia's casualties goes to Stalin. So, I don't think the Russian KDR was that bad. Regarding Davies book, I posted the article about it, because I always thought that Russia had defeated Hitler mostly alone, but that is my opinion. I agree with you the article doesn't show enough evidence to establish that Russia defeated Hitler alone, that's why I'm also getting the book. I don't think Davies is an ignorant, but let's read the book and then we can discuss this more properly.OpsChief wrote:
OK OK nobody is a fool and we all need a reality check. Ad Homenim isn't going to help us evaluate Davies' position. Age, lack of published crediential = irrelevant. Solid questions or arguments = why I am here to hear others analysis of any given subject.
We must be very specific to make sense. Some of our points are like apples and oranges. Some are confusing. Here are a few I need to understand.
How can a book about Russia (not USSR) make claims to defeat Germany (not the Axis) when all of those were integrated vertically, horizontally and everywhichway I can think of. That Russia did not have significant presence in the Pacific doesn't talk to the topic. If Russia Beat Germany then how? Now we begin to measure, weigh and balance all of the HOWs. Money, Time, Weather, Terrain, Alliances, Order of Battle, etc etc etc.. Where did the means to stand up and fight a technologically superior army come from?
I hope I am being clear. If you count what the Russians lost (however horrible it was) against how much Germany lost (however horiible it was) you are NEVER going to convince me of anything except that you think you can make a point by ignoring a significant majority of the factors leading to victory conditions.
The article /fails period, the book may not /fail. This is a fascinating topic so I am getting the book to find out whether Davies is a genius or a knucklehead, or somewhere in the middle like the rest of us.
I am sorry, please no offense meant, but talking about battalions, best tanks, air wings, individual pilots and South Park, while all interesting cannot make a case for a regional outcome subset of a global war m8s, it can't.
I want to see how Davies handles the underwriting of the Soviet War Machine '41-45, the collateral effects of a multifront war. Good God the USSR, US, UK, Axis were fighting the equivalent of maybe 6 regional conflicts, something NO SINGLE COUNTRY'S ARMY CAN DO EVEN TODAY!!! (without obvious self-destructive build up) WWII was huge. If Davies doesn't account for this as the article suggests then /fail by ignorance.
If his book is to remind us that Russia/USSR got hammered with a bat in a metal hurt locker then I am already with that.
I mean no disrespect to him, if Davies is ignorant it is by choice of economy and not lack of mental faculties. Having planned/operated military operations at Field Army level I can say one thing for sure - no single brain can hold all the data at the same time, multiply that times 100 and to weigh in all the factors that military science indicates is relavent to victory conditions and you have an author who must choose ignorance (i.e. prioritize and omit) or write the Encyclopaedia Britannica about an 8 year period of world history Davies wants to sell books not destroy the last rain forest.sergeriver wrote:
US won the Pacific Theatre, besides I don't know why did you guys brought that issue in this topic. When you talk about the people Russia lost, you can't give credit to the Germans for that, since a lot of Russia's casualties goes to Stalin. So, I don't think the Russian KDR was that bad. Regarding Davies book, I posted the article about it, because I always thought that Russia had defeated Hitler mostly alone, but that is my opinion. I agree with you the article doesn't show enough evidence to establish that Russia defeated Hitler alone, that's why I'm also getting the book. I don't think Davies is an ignorant, but let's read the book and then we can discuss this more properly.OpsChief wrote:
OK OK nobody is a fool and we all need a reality check. Ad Homenim isn't going to help us evaluate Davies' position. Age, lack of published crediential = irrelevant. Solid questions or arguments = why I am here to hear others analysis of any given subject.
We must be very specific to make sense. Some of our points are like apples and oranges. Some are confusing. Here are a few I need to understand.
How can a book about Russia (not USSR) make claims to defeat Germany (not the Axis) when all of those were integrated vertically, horizontally and everywhichway I can think of. That Russia did not have significant presence in the Pacific doesn't talk to the topic. If Russia Beat Germany then how? Now we begin to measure, weigh and balance all of the HOWs. Money, Time, Weather, Terrain, Alliances, Order of Battle, etc etc etc.. Where did the means to stand up and fight a technologically superior army come from?
I hope I am being clear. If you count what the Russians lost (however horrible it was) against how much Germany lost (however horiible it was) you are NEVER going to convince me of anything except that you think you can make a point by ignoring a significant majority of the factors leading to victory conditions.
The article /fails period, the book may not /fail. This is a fascinating topic so I am getting the book to find out whether Davies is a genius or a knucklehead, or somewhere in the middle like the rest of us.
I am sorry, please no offense meant, but talking about battalions, best tanks, air wings, individual pilots and South Park, while all interesting cannot make a case for a regional outcome subset of a global war m8s, it can't.
I want to see how Davies handles the underwriting of the Soviet War Machine '41-45, the collateral effects of a multifront war. Good God the USSR, US, UK, Axis were fighting the equivalent of maybe 6 regional conflicts, something NO SINGLE COUNTRY'S ARMY CAN DO EVEN TODAY!!! (without obvious self-destructive build up) WWII was huge. If Davies doesn't account for this as the article suggests then /fail by ignorance.
If his book is to remind us that Russia/USSR got hammered with a bat in a metal hurt locker then I am already with that.
I was wary about the article not equaling the book from the beginning and said so.
I differ with you on the this, the US no more WON the Pacific Theater than Russia WON the War against Germany. In military terms I would say that Russia was the "Main Effort" on the ground vs Axis Europe but without an Allied "Unity of Purpose", Russia never drives into Berlin and probably never walks out of Russia.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-12 07:43:38)