The best commander?
- Thread starter JudgeMental
- Start date
I have to conclude the same. Winston Churchill said a fanatic is someone who won't recognize the fallacies in his argument, yet won't change the subject. However, I feel compelled to make a couple of important points here.
First, if people can't realize that leaving your nation to fight for an aggressor state that is the enemy of your nation is treason, then I don't know what to say. The bottom line is that just because people have differring political persuasions in your country doesn't mean you are justified in betraying your fellow coutrymen by fighting for the enemy.
I could understand if Belgium or Holland or whatever had been a very oppressive, abusive states, but the fact is that neither of them were. To turn your back on such countries and fight for a regime such as Nazi Germany instead is not what I would call the best idea.
Also, the misinformation spreading does not help. Whenever someone brings up Communist ideaology, everyone points the finger at Stalinist Soviet Union. When are people going to realize that the USSR was not a communist state? No state has been! What the USSR had was Leninism and Stalinism, especially at the time of World War II.
Stalin claimed to be following Communist ideaology, but because of that, people cite his abuses and then say by extension, that Communism somehow advocates all of it. Don't you realize how absurd that logic is? If anyone actually read Marxist doctrine, they would know that it is a dissertation on political economy of the late 19th century, which also was bound to a theory of history that Marx and Engels formulated.
It doesn't advocate the extermination of whole populations or of competition amongst races. But wait a second, which ideaology did form itself around those ideas?
In my opinion, this is just revisionism. I.e. make Communist thinkers from the 1930's out to be of the same cloth as Fascists, which is completely ridiculous. What it does is legitimize Nazism in a way for some people's twisted reasoning. The only reason this was perpetuated was due to the Cold War, if it had not been for the USSR, Communism would still be discussed for what it is, not what everyone has made it into.
And Preatorian, I don't know if you have lived in the United States recently, but I would argue that the current regime is much closer to a fascist one then anything under FDR. The evidence is all around you, I won't even both going in to how the Bush administration has infringed upon the liberties of our people as outlined in the Constitution, not to speak of the trend we are exhibiting for waging aggressive, unjustified war.
First, if people can't realize that leaving your nation to fight for an aggressor state that is the enemy of your nation is treason, then I don't know what to say. The bottom line is that just because people have differring political persuasions in your country doesn't mean you are justified in betraying your fellow coutrymen by fighting for the enemy.
I could understand if Belgium or Holland or whatever had been a very oppressive, abusive states, but the fact is that neither of them were. To turn your back on such countries and fight for a regime such as Nazi Germany instead is not what I would call the best idea.
Also, the misinformation spreading does not help. Whenever someone brings up Communist ideaology, everyone points the finger at Stalinist Soviet Union. When are people going to realize that the USSR was not a communist state? No state has been! What the USSR had was Leninism and Stalinism, especially at the time of World War II.
Stalin claimed to be following Communist ideaology, but because of that, people cite his abuses and then say by extension, that Communism somehow advocates all of it. Don't you realize how absurd that logic is? If anyone actually read Marxist doctrine, they would know that it is a dissertation on political economy of the late 19th century, which also was bound to a theory of history that Marx and Engels formulated.
It doesn't advocate the extermination of whole populations or of competition amongst races. But wait a second, which ideaology did form itself around those ideas?
In my opinion, this is just revisionism. I.e. make Communist thinkers from the 1930's out to be of the same cloth as Fascists, which is completely ridiculous. What it does is legitimize Nazism in a way for some people's twisted reasoning. The only reason this was perpetuated was due to the Cold War, if it had not been for the USSR, Communism would still be discussed for what it is, not what everyone has made it into.
And Preatorian, I don't know if you have lived in the United States recently, but I would argue that the current regime is much closer to a fascist one then anything under FDR. The evidence is all around you, I won't even both going in to how the Bush administration has infringed upon the liberties of our people as outlined in the Constitution, not to speak of the trend we are exhibiting for waging aggressive, unjustified war.
Upvote
0
i'm sure you mean catholicism in its ideal form which could be nice... can't say i'd be less then frightened of such a government if it were ruling america. different religions/moral beliefs and the fact that catholicism at its root is not a tolerant religion (not saying they're prejudiced to race or whatnot but rather no one gets to heaven unless they're catholic). if catholics had their utopia everyone would be catholic.
i find it amusing, like a clown, that piron first scorned fascism and then you in turn scorn communism.
what makes it even funnier is that you point to soviet genocide as the product of communism and then write off hitler's atrocities because he wasnt a TRUE fascist. was stalin a true communist? some say he was a dictator.
sure fascism would be great ideally, but so would communism. have either worked when (apparently) attempted? not fascism and not soviet communism.
Upvote
0
![[TW]Wilsonam](/data/avatars/s/0/10.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
A number of comments on this lot...
1. CHILL.
2. A word to the Americans in this debate: please try and remember that the likes of Leon Degrelle are seen as "traitors" by a large number of Europeans. They are also revered by neo-Nazis/Fascists, which makes them "suspect" by unfortunate association.
3. Communism isn't "evil" per se. However, Stalin's take on it clearly was deeply unpleasant, along with the whole Revolutionary mess. Unfortunately it seems that any concept of people being nice to each other gets hijacked pretty fast, by everyone from mad dictators to sex-mad popes.
Lets put this one back on topic... we can debate the "niceties" of patriotism and so forth elsewhere! It is a VERY tricky topic
REPEAT: END OF POLITICAL RANTING HERE. THANK YOU ALL. THE END.
1. CHILL.
2. A word to the Americans in this debate: please try and remember that the likes of Leon Degrelle are seen as "traitors" by a large number of Europeans. They are also revered by neo-Nazis/Fascists, which makes them "suspect" by unfortunate association.
3. Communism isn't "evil" per se. However, Stalin's take on it clearly was deeply unpleasant, along with the whole Revolutionary mess. Unfortunately it seems that any concept of people being nice to each other gets hijacked pretty fast, by everyone from mad dictators to sex-mad popes.
Lets put this one back on topic... we can debate the "niceties" of patriotism and so forth elsewhere! It is a VERY tricky topic
REPEAT: END OF POLITICAL RANTING HERE. THANK YOU ALL. THE END.
Upvote
0
Wow. Once again I repeat wow. Reading your people's comments on govt. and etc. has taught me more than this whole year's worth of Freshman Honors World History. I have yet to see people as intelligent as you. I applaude you all. Now back on topic. I think Michael Wittman was a very able and good commander. One of the best that ever was.
Upvote
0
Zbojnik said:
Nice post mate.
He must have made an impression with the British Army because as stated there is STILL a painting of him (60 years on) 'at action' in the Sgts Mess at 2 RTR. I know, I've seen it. Not that it needs stating again but he was and is admired for his skill and tactical acumen not his political beliefs which are not part of the discussion here. Incidentally, lets not forget in his success a large part was played by his crew...
Upvote
0
LOL just because the Brits don't have enough of their own people to demonstrate "tactical acumen," so they need to fill up the Mess Hall with paintings of other armies' soldiers
lmao sorry I just couldn't resist that.
Seriously, why do the Brits have a painting of that guy? Is that how its done in Europe or something?
lmao sorry I just couldn't resist that.
Seriously, why do the Brits have a painting of that guy? Is that how its done in Europe or something?
Upvote
0
SS tactics? Not familiar with those. Fire and meaneuver? Speed and aggressiveness in the assault? Combined arms? Yes the SS used all of that, but I don't think they have a patent on them, heck they have been viable tactics for thousands of years
Besides, no one is talking tactics. What I meant is that the Brits are kinda funny for putting a picture of a former enemy in the officer's Mess. Ever since the beginning of organized warfare, you put yourself over your enemy. That is the reason for bringin back enemy heraldry, armor and weapons and displaying them in your halls, to show that you vanquished them and triumphed.
But putting up a painted portrait of your enemy seems odd.
Honoring skill and bravery is good, but generally in most militaries of the world, you honor the skill and bravery of your own troops inside your military installations, or those of your allies, not your enemies. Excuse me for finding it funny!
Besides, no one is talking tactics. What I meant is that the Brits are kinda funny for putting a picture of a former enemy in the officer's Mess. Ever since the beginning of organized warfare, you put yourself over your enemy. That is the reason for bringin back enemy heraldry, armor and weapons and displaying them in your halls, to show that you vanquished them and triumphed.
But putting up a painted portrait of your enemy seems odd.
Honoring skill and bravery is good, but generally in most militaries of the world, you honor the skill and bravery of your own troops inside your military installations, or those of your allies, not your enemies. Excuse me for finding it funny!
Upvote
0
Its a painting of him and his crew at 'action' . Admiring an enemy is nothing new. The tankies at 2 RTR know a thing or two about armoured warfare and from that knowledge has grown a respect of him. Its the same if you talk to people from other armoured regiments from the UK. I fail to see whats so odd about that. This isn't a like or dislike or admiration on a personal level its admiration of the qualities of a foe. Maybe its just a 'squaddie' thing, I don't know.
Oh and by the way, its a Sgts Mess, NOT a mess hall. A Sgts Mess is where the Senior Non Commisioned Officers of a regiment hang out. A mess hall is where the OR's get their food. It may seems a minor point to you LOL but it took me 12 years to reach the dizzy heights of Sgt so it meant a great deal to me to get there.
Oh and by the way, its a Sgts Mess, NOT a mess hall. A Sgts Mess is where the Senior Non Commisioned Officers of a regiment hang out. A mess hall is where the OR's get their food. It may seems a minor point to you LOL but it took me 12 years to reach the dizzy heights of Sgt so it meant a great deal to me to get there.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The reason is also to remind you that you WON - you beat the enemy who's portrait is hanging there. It is a long-standing British thing to honour those who give us a hard time - but we still beat themJack said:Besides, no one is talking tactics. What I meant is that the Brits are kinda funny for putting a picture of a former enemy in the officer's Mess. Ever since the beginning of organized warfare, you put yourself over your enemy. That is the reason for bringin back enemy heraldry, armor and weapons and displaying them in your halls, to show that you vanquished them and triumphed.
But putting up a painted portrait of your enemy seems odd.
Honoring skill and bravery is good, but generally in most militaries of the world, you honor the skill and bravery of your own troops inside your military installations, or those of your allies, not your enemies. Excuse me for finding it funny!
It also reminds all the troops that, even if some enemy has a near-godlike-rep, we have always beaten them in the end!As a pure aside, some other nationalities might do well to remember that winning graciously will cause you far less problems with the vanquished than treating them like ****. Of course, shame we didn't remember that in 1918...
Upvote
0
Jack said:
In the hall? No. In the Mess yes, there are.
But then I already mentioned it was a Mess, not a mess hall didn't I?
Ah well, I'm sure the message will get through in the end.
Upvote
0
[RO]Wilsonam said:
Shame you didn't keep your word in 1939...Maybe there would not be a subject for RO:O then...
Upvote
0
Strahd said:
Shame Hitler didnt also stick to his word where he promised to not invade anywhere after the Sudetenland...only to go invading the rest of Europe and killing off millions of its populace...maybe then there would be even less of a subject for RO:O and people wouldnt have had to try ridiculous appeasement pacts to try and peacefully stop an egomaniac going to war before we start dropping bombs on them
But im sure the world would have loved the UK or the USSR for invading the sovereign nation of Germany and deposing its democratically-elected (even if dubious) Government first "just in case" and to "prevent possible war" wouldnt they
After all, they sure love that same policy when it was used elsewhere in the world recently...Next time you use the word "you" - remember not to direct it at one person instead of the actions of a few idiots in charge of something that took place 60 years ago...i bet if i had said "Germany" or "You" above instead of "Hitler" i would have got the usual speeches about how "not all germans were nazis" etc...works both ways ya know.
Upvote
0