FourPart;1479963 wrote: I suppose that, 'technically', if you heard him say it, the you could be said to be quoting him, irrespective of whether the words were originally his or not.
It wasn't the quoting I criticized, it was the attribution.
FIFA furore
FIFA furore
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1479962 wrote: I remember hearing Sir Jack Brabham saying it on television. He was quoting, just like that monotonic German chap.
Ah, you must be talking of the most prolific and talented F1 winner of all time, his Michael-ness. And one of the most ruthless car racers (Barring Ayrton Senna)!
Ah, you must be talking of the most prolific and talented F1 winner of all time, his Michael-ness. And one of the most ruthless car racers (Barring Ayrton Senna)!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1479965 wrote: Ah, you must be talking of the most prolific and talented F1 winner of all time, his Michael-ness. And one of the most ruthless car racers (Barring Ayrton Senna)!
Formula 1 is almost - not quite, but almost - as wasteful and disgusting an embarrassment and excess as Powerboat racing, the world would be a mentally healthier environment if neither existed.
Formula 1 is almost - not quite, but almost - as wasteful and disgusting an embarrassment and excess as Powerboat racing, the world would be a mentally healthier environment if neither existed.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1479961 wrote: Of course I am, as would any reasonable observer.
The Americans lost under a half million in the armed services in all theatres, around half of those in the Pacific.
Britain and the Commonwealth lost under a half million in the armed services in all theatres, including the Pacific.
The Soviets lost a minimum of 8,700,000 in the armed services in the war zone between the Volga and Berlin. And the only reason they won across that battlefield was that Stalin had forced the industrialization of the Soviet Union throughout the thirties, regardless of the human cost involved because the battle with the Third Reich was clearly unavoidable.
Without that resolve and the consequent preponderance of Soviet armaments, the Normandy landings could never have taken place at all. How you think the Third Reich would have fallen in those circumstances I don't know, but everything done to the Axis powers by Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA was a mere pinprick by comparison with the Eastern Front, an absolute irrelevance to the outcome.
One of the main reasons the Russkies lost so many men was the poor standard of the commanders, many of whom were executed on Stalin's orders, because of various intelligence "leaks" from Germany which falsely implicated many of his best military commanders in plots to overthrow Stalin. Thus Germany softened Russia before invading. The Russians went to many lengths trying to AVOID combat with The Third Reich, such as the non-aggression pact. This also included not firing at snooping, or even attacking, German aircraft initially!!
Hardly the stuff of heroes, is it? I grant you, the Russians, without a doubt, caused Germany to spread it's forces too thinly by resisting the Nazi invasion, but probably wouldn't have become involved if Barbarossa had not been implemented by Hitler. Russia needed us at least as much as we needed them. Can you imagine the extra force Germany could have brought to bear on Russia if England had been knocked out of the war early? The Germans didn't take long to force Russia's surrender in WW1, and that could easily have been the case WITHOUT the rest of the alliance in WW2.
The Americans lost under a half million in the armed services in all theatres, around half of those in the Pacific.
Britain and the Commonwealth lost under a half million in the armed services in all theatres, including the Pacific.
The Soviets lost a minimum of 8,700,000 in the armed services in the war zone between the Volga and Berlin. And the only reason they won across that battlefield was that Stalin had forced the industrialization of the Soviet Union throughout the thirties, regardless of the human cost involved because the battle with the Third Reich was clearly unavoidable.
Without that resolve and the consequent preponderance of Soviet armaments, the Normandy landings could never have taken place at all. How you think the Third Reich would have fallen in those circumstances I don't know, but everything done to the Axis powers by Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA was a mere pinprick by comparison with the Eastern Front, an absolute irrelevance to the outcome.
One of the main reasons the Russkies lost so many men was the poor standard of the commanders, many of whom were executed on Stalin's orders, because of various intelligence "leaks" from Germany which falsely implicated many of his best military commanders in plots to overthrow Stalin. Thus Germany softened Russia before invading. The Russians went to many lengths trying to AVOID combat with The Third Reich, such as the non-aggression pact. This also included not firing at snooping, or even attacking, German aircraft initially!!
Hardly the stuff of heroes, is it? I grant you, the Russians, without a doubt, caused Germany to spread it's forces too thinly by resisting the Nazi invasion, but probably wouldn't have become involved if Barbarossa had not been implemented by Hitler. Russia needed us at least as much as we needed them. Can you imagine the extra force Germany could have brought to bear on Russia if England had been knocked out of the war early? The Germans didn't take long to force Russia's surrender in WW1, and that could easily have been the case WITHOUT the rest of the alliance in WW2.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
And just for the record, Spot what I said was; The fact that Russia was nominally an ally against Germany is almost irrelevant when set against his regimes monstrous crimes.
Not irrelevant to the outcome. I didn't say that at all. It niggles me when people misquote...
Not irrelevant to the outcome. I didn't say that at all. It niggles me when people misquote...
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1479967 wrote: The Russians went to many lengths trying to AVOID combat with The Third Reich, such as the non-aggression pact.And that differs from the Munich Agreement how, exactly?
Stalin needed as much time as he could scrape from the barrel to increase his rates of tank and aircraft production. The two years the Ribbentrop Pact gained him were essential to the eventual Soviet victory. I'm sure you recognize this, regardless of your patriotic posturing.
Stalin needed as much time as he could scrape from the barrel to increase his rates of tank and aircraft production. The two years the Ribbentrop Pact gained him were essential to the eventual Soviet victory. I'm sure you recognize this, regardless of your patriotic posturing.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1479968 wrote: And just for the record, Spot what I said was; The fact that Russia was nominally an ally against Germany is almost irrelevant when set against his regimes monstrous crimes.
Not irrelevant to the outcome. I didn't say that at all. It niggles me when people misquote...
It was the "nominally" I was objecting to, not the weasel-worded "irrelevant".
Not irrelevant to the outcome. I didn't say that at all. It niggles me when people misquote...
It was the "nominally" I was objecting to, not the weasel-worded "irrelevant".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1479969 wrote: And that differs from the Munich Agreement how, exactly?
Stalin needed as much time as he could scrape from the barrel to increase his rates of tank and aircraft production. The two years the Ribbentrop Pact gained him were essential to the eventual Soviet victory. I'm sure you recognize this, regardless of your patriotic posturing.
Yes, he was "playing for time", just like Chamberlain with "peace in our time". Better a Patriot than a turn-coat!
Stalin needed as much time as he could scrape from the barrel to increase his rates of tank and aircraft production. The two years the Ribbentrop Pact gained him were essential to the eventual Soviet victory. I'm sure you recognize this, regardless of your patriotic posturing.
Yes, he was "playing for time", just like Chamberlain with "peace in our time". Better a Patriot than a turn-coat!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1479971 wrote: Better a Patriot than a turn-coat!
You may thank one of the previous Admins here for educating me.
You may thank one of the previous Admins here for educating me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1479972 wrote: You may thank one of the previous Admins here for educating me.
He did a poor job, then! Was he a rabid communist by chance?
He did a poor job, then! Was he a rabid communist by chance?
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1479973 wrote: Then he did a poor job, then! Was he a rabid communist by chance?Paul? Good God no, he was a fanatically patriotic American with all the honesty, charm and tendency to explore common ground which that description implies.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1479974 wrote: Paul? Good God no, he was a fanatically patriotic American with all the honesty, charm and tendency to explore common ground which that description implies.
And what did he "teach" you, then? That the Allies only succeeded in Europe because of the Russians? Let's just switch it round a moment by saying Russia only succeeded in Europe because of the Allies.
Bottom line was we needed one another to beat Germany, but it most certainly wasn't down to Russia alone. To think that is on a par with "holocaust denial", in my book.
And what did he "teach" you, then? That the Allies only succeeded in Europe because of the Russians? Let's just switch it round a moment by saying Russia only succeeded in Europe because of the Allies.
Bottom line was we needed one another to beat Germany, but it most certainly wasn't down to Russia alone. To think that is on a par with "holocaust denial", in my book.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1479975 wrote: And what did he "teach" you, then?You had to have been there. I was, and I still bear the scars.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1479961 wrote: Of course I am, as would any reasonable observer.
The Americans lost under a half million in the armed services in all theatres, around half of those in the Pacific.
Britain and the Commonwealth lost under a half million in the armed services in all theatres, including the Pacific.
The Soviets lost a minimum of 8,700,000 in the armed services in the war zone between the Volga and Berlin. And the only reason they won across that battlefield was that Stalin had forced the industrialization of the Soviet Union throughout the thirties, regardless of the human cost involved because the battle with the Third Reich was clearly unavoidable.
Without that resolve and the consequent preponderance of Soviet armaments, the Normandy landings could never have taken place at all. How you think the Third Reich would have fallen in those circumstances I don't know, but everything done to the Axis powers by Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA was a mere pinprick by comparison with the Eastern Front, an absolute irrelevance to the outcome.
Hitler must get a significant a bit of credit for bringing the Third Reich to its knees.
Without his venture into Russia, completely ignoring the adventures suffered by Napoleon's army in the past century, throwing nearly 60% of his troops into the Russian Grinder, Stalin could have simply sat back until the Western countries expended themselves, and come in to mop up the entire continent. That, of course, was his plan, until Hitler surprised him by doing the unthinkable.
As for Soviet losses, Stalin had plenty to spare, and he simply kept throwing bodies at the Germans until the latter nearly ran out of bullets.
The Americans and Brits could have done the same thing, simply sit back and wait for the Germans to expend themselves. But of course, there might have been little left of Western Europe by the time Stalin stopped advancing.
Sure Stalin could have won the war all by his lonesome, but I am pretty sure we would not like the world that came from that result.
An interesting perspective on Uncle Joe is in this book I have been reading.
The Americans lost under a half million in the armed services in all theatres, around half of those in the Pacific.
Britain and the Commonwealth lost under a half million in the armed services in all theatres, including the Pacific.
The Soviets lost a minimum of 8,700,000 in the armed services in the war zone between the Volga and Berlin. And the only reason they won across that battlefield was that Stalin had forced the industrialization of the Soviet Union throughout the thirties, regardless of the human cost involved because the battle with the Third Reich was clearly unavoidable.
Without that resolve and the consequent preponderance of Soviet armaments, the Normandy landings could never have taken place at all. How you think the Third Reich would have fallen in those circumstances I don't know, but everything done to the Axis powers by Britain, the Commonwealth and the USA was a mere pinprick by comparison with the Eastern Front, an absolute irrelevance to the outcome.
Hitler must get a significant a bit of credit for bringing the Third Reich to its knees.
Without his venture into Russia, completely ignoring the adventures suffered by Napoleon's army in the past century, throwing nearly 60% of his troops into the Russian Grinder, Stalin could have simply sat back until the Western countries expended themselves, and come in to mop up the entire continent. That, of course, was his plan, until Hitler surprised him by doing the unthinkable.
As for Soviet losses, Stalin had plenty to spare, and he simply kept throwing bodies at the Germans until the latter nearly ran out of bullets.
The Americans and Brits could have done the same thing, simply sit back and wait for the Germans to expend themselves. But of course, there might have been little left of Western Europe by the time Stalin stopped advancing.
Sure Stalin could have won the war all by his lonesome, but I am pretty sure we would not like the world that came from that result.
An interesting perspective on Uncle Joe is in this book I have been reading.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
FIFA furore
spot;1479977 wrote: You had to have been there. I was, and I still bear the scars.
Sounds grim!:wah:
Sounds grim!:wah:
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Not at all, I gained a great deal by discussing the world with him. His style highlighted everything I have subsequently tried to avoid doing online. Nobody else ever taught me so much.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
Sure Stalin could have won the war all by his lonesome, but I am pretty sure we would not like the world that came from that result.
I'm not so sure that he could. He would have had the same problem invading the UK that Hitler did, namely defence in depth, such as tank traps, stop lines, halt lines, concrete redoubts, "pillboxes", not to mention P.L.U.S.(pipeline under sea), a dreadful contraption that released thousands of gallons of inflammable liquid very quickly, and was fired by aiming a rocket into the floating combustible liquid, thus "torching" anything it touched. There was also the Royal Navy, which at the time was pretty big and powerful, unlike today! Not to mention the increasingly numerous and effective machines and personnel of the R.A.F. The captured Luftwaffe pilot, Von Werra, was very dis-heartened whilst travelling "up north" to a P.O.W. camp, seeing the preparations against German invasion. One of Hitler's senior Admirals (Raeder, I think) actually advised Hitler that "Operation Sea-lion" should not proceed at this time. He was alleged to have said to Hitler; "we might as well put the troops through a sausage machine". If true, then it was a dangerous thing to tell Hitler, who cherished the idea of invading Britain.
I definitely agree that HAD Stalin not been attacked by Germany, he may have felt emboldened to attack Europe, and had he done this, we would have had our hands full!!
If he HAD won, kiss goodbye to another 50 million folk....
I'm not so sure that he could. He would have had the same problem invading the UK that Hitler did, namely defence in depth, such as tank traps, stop lines, halt lines, concrete redoubts, "pillboxes", not to mention P.L.U.S.(pipeline under sea), a dreadful contraption that released thousands of gallons of inflammable liquid very quickly, and was fired by aiming a rocket into the floating combustible liquid, thus "torching" anything it touched. There was also the Royal Navy, which at the time was pretty big and powerful, unlike today! Not to mention the increasingly numerous and effective machines and personnel of the R.A.F. The captured Luftwaffe pilot, Von Werra, was very dis-heartened whilst travelling "up north" to a P.O.W. camp, seeing the preparations against German invasion. One of Hitler's senior Admirals (Raeder, I think) actually advised Hitler that "Operation Sea-lion" should not proceed at this time. He was alleged to have said to Hitler; "we might as well put the troops through a sausage machine". If true, then it was a dangerous thing to tell Hitler, who cherished the idea of invading Britain.
I definitely agree that HAD Stalin not been attacked by Germany, he may have felt emboldened to attack Europe, and had he done this, we would have had our hands full!!
If he HAD won, kiss goodbye to another 50 million folk....
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Actually, it was PLUTO (Pipeline Under The Ocean) - the former command centre for it was based in a house about 500m from my flat.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1479994 wrote: I'm not so sure that he could. He would have had the same problem invading the UK that Hitler did
I think you're discussing a "war" of your own devising. We were discussing the war against the Axis powers and whether the Soviet Union would have beaten the Third Reich after being invaded, even had the other Allied Powers refused to fight. It's significant to point out that at that stage, June 1941, America had no military involvement against anyone at all - a state of affairs one might easily wish returned - and the only forces the British were engaged against after abandoning mainland Europe were the Italians in North Africa. After 1945, Stalin never invaded any country at all. Indeed, other than when repressing attempted coups in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, neither did the Soviet Union after his death. The Soviet Union was not, unlike the Third Reich, territorially expansionist.
I think you're discussing a "war" of your own devising. We were discussing the war against the Axis powers and whether the Soviet Union would have beaten the Third Reich after being invaded, even had the other Allied Powers refused to fight. It's significant to point out that at that stage, June 1941, America had no military involvement against anyone at all - a state of affairs one might easily wish returned - and the only forces the British were engaged against after abandoning mainland Europe were the Italians in North Africa. After 1945, Stalin never invaded any country at all. Indeed, other than when repressing attempted coups in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, neither did the Soviet Union after his death. The Soviet Union was not, unlike the Third Reich, territorially expansionist.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
FourPart;1479997 wrote: Actually, it was PLUTO (Pipeline Under The Ocean) - the former command centre for it was based in a house about 500m from my flat.
Thanks for that, FourPart, I like my facts straight.
A devilish device that was rumoured to have been used in anger once,in or near East Anglia (UK). A police officer friend of our family, approaching retirement in the 1970's had a very interesting story to tell about PLUTO. He said that one night, all the alarms went, and he, alongside several thousand troops, were deployed rapidly along the coastal fringe there and given orders to "shoot on sight anything trying to come ashore up the beach". Nothing happened all night, though he could hear distant heavy small-arms fire, and what sounded like shells or H.E. grenades exploding. Over the next few days, the army ( he was a Sergeant, Regiment Of The Royal Artillery) was tasked with clearing hundreds of dead German soldiers washed up on the local Norfolk beaches. Nothing about this ever appeared in the Press, the soldiers (and local inhabitants) were told not to talk about what they had seen, or participated in, for fear of upsetting public morale.
IF TRUE, (and I can see no reason for him to lie), then we had a close call. But it proved one thing; Our defences WERE up to the job.
Have you had a look at the old PLUTO command centre? I must confess to a certain fascination with old wartime relics and sites.
Thanks for that, FourPart, I like my facts straight.
A devilish device that was rumoured to have been used in anger once,in or near East Anglia (UK). A police officer friend of our family, approaching retirement in the 1970's had a very interesting story to tell about PLUTO. He said that one night, all the alarms went, and he, alongside several thousand troops, were deployed rapidly along the coastal fringe there and given orders to "shoot on sight anything trying to come ashore up the beach". Nothing happened all night, though he could hear distant heavy small-arms fire, and what sounded like shells or H.E. grenades exploding. Over the next few days, the army ( he was a Sergeant, Regiment Of The Royal Artillery) was tasked with clearing hundreds of dead German soldiers washed up on the local Norfolk beaches. Nothing about this ever appeared in the Press, the soldiers (and local inhabitants) were told not to talk about what they had seen, or participated in, for fear of upsetting public morale.
IF TRUE, (and I can see no reason for him to lie), then we had a close call. But it proved one thing; Our defences WERE up to the job.
Have you had a look at the old PLUTO command centre? I must confess to a certain fascination with old wartime relics and sites.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
spot;1479999 wrote: I think you're discussing a "war" of your own devising. We were discussing the war against the Axis powers and whether the Soviet Union would have beaten the Third Reich after being invaded, even had the other Allied Powers refused to fight. It's significant to point out that at that stage, June 1941, America had no military involvement against anyone at all - a state of affairs one might easily wish returned - and the only forces the British were engaged against after abandoning mainland Europe were the Italians in North Africa. After 1945, Stalin never invaded any country at all. Indeed, other than when repressing attempted coups in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, neither did the Soviet Union after his death. The Soviet Union was not, unlike the Third Reich, territorially expansionist.
Let's just ignore Russia annexing the Balkans then, shall we? Or Poland? East Germany? Hungary? Czechoslovakia?
We were discussing the war against the Axis powers and whether the Soviet Union would have beaten the Third Reich after being invaded, even had the other Allied Powers refused to fight.
Actually we were discussing FIFA originally....and American legal actions against them!
Let's just ignore Russia annexing the Balkans then, shall we? Or Poland? East Germany? Hungary? Czechoslovakia?
We were discussing the war against the Axis powers and whether the Soviet Union would have beaten the Third Reich after being invaded, even had the other Allied Powers refused to fight.
Actually we were discussing FIFA originally....and American legal actions against them!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1480001 wrote: Actually we were discussing FIFA originally....and American legal actions against them!
I am not complaining, just thankful somebody else remembers what the topic when I started the thread.
After 1945, Stalin never invaded any country at all. Indeed, other than when repressing attempted coups in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, neither did the Soviet Union after his death.
I am no historian......but.....Stalin never invaded any country at all ? Were the afore said countries not 'invaded' at some stage ?
And were the 'coups' lead by nationals of the said countries trying to return them to self rule, or independence ?
Just watched a recording of 'Unreported world' a Channel 4 program about the unrest amongst Crimean Tartars concerning their situation in the newly 'Free' Crimea.
It all gets messy when generations of 'foreigners' children consider the place their own, thinking of South Africa, but the same idea applies to the UK
I am not complaining, just thankful somebody else remembers what the topic when I started the thread.
After 1945, Stalin never invaded any country at all. Indeed, other than when repressing attempted coups in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, neither did the Soviet Union after his death.
I am no historian......but.....Stalin never invaded any country at all ? Were the afore said countries not 'invaded' at some stage ?
And were the 'coups' lead by nationals of the said countries trying to return them to self rule, or independence ?
Just watched a recording of 'Unreported world' a Channel 4 program about the unrest amongst Crimean Tartars concerning their situation in the newly 'Free' Crimea.
It all gets messy when generations of 'foreigners' children consider the place their own, thinking of South Africa, but the same idea applies to the UK
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
FIFA furore
Smaug;1480001 wrote: Let's just ignore Russia annexing the Balkans then, shall we? Or Poland? East Germany? Hungary? Czechoslovakia?
Bruv;1480003 wrote: I am no historian......but.....Stalin never invaded any country at all ? Were the afore said countries not 'invaded' at some stage ?
I did qualify my remark with "after 1945", and I note that the annexations were all agreed beforehand by Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference.
Bruv;1480003 wrote: I am no historian......but.....Stalin never invaded any country at all ? Were the afore said countries not 'invaded' at some stage ?
I did qualify my remark with "after 1945", and I note that the annexations were all agreed beforehand by Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1480006 wrote: I did qualify my remark with "after 1945", and I note that the annexations were all agreed beforehand by Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference.
Is 'Annex' an euphemism, like 'collateral damage' to hide what it really means ?
Is 'Annex' an euphemism, like 'collateral damage' to hide what it really means ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
FIFA furore
spot;1480006 wrote: I did qualify my remark with "after 1945", and I note that the annexations were all agreed beforehand by Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference.
As a reward for Stalin's help' or appeasement to stop the Red Army's advance without further loss of life? Possibly a bit of both.
Yes Bruv, it's a euphemism to "dumb down" the ugly truth. I hate the expression "collateral damage", like referring to a shooting as a "firearms incident".
As a reward for Stalin's help' or appeasement to stop the Red Army's advance without further loss of life? Possibly a bit of both.
Yes Bruv, it's a euphemism to "dumb down" the ugly truth. I hate the expression "collateral damage", like referring to a shooting as a "firearms incident".
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Bruv;1480010 wrote: Is 'Annex' an euphemism, like 'collateral damage' to hide what it really means ?
Smaug;1480013 wrote: Yes Bruv, it's a euphemism to "dumb down" the ugly truth. I hate the expression "collateral damage", like referring to a shooting as a "firearms incident".
What word would you use instead? Annex has a specific meaning that's been widely used in English since before the Tudors. How can it possibly be a euphemism? A euphemism for what alternative word? What does it "really mean", what's "the ugly truth"?
The OED, again:3. To add as an additional part to existing possessions (with or without local contiguity).
c1550 tr. P. Vergil Eng. Hist. (1846) I. 57 Julius Cæsar annexed Brittaine to the Romaine emperie.
1684 Scanderbeg Redivivus ii. 10 This Country..has now annext the Great Dukedom of Lithuania.
1800 Duke of Wellington in Dispatches I. 60 The whole country is permanently annexed to the British Empire.
Smaug;1480013 wrote: Yes Bruv, it's a euphemism to "dumb down" the ugly truth. I hate the expression "collateral damage", like referring to a shooting as a "firearms incident".
What word would you use instead? Annex has a specific meaning that's been widely used in English since before the Tudors. How can it possibly be a euphemism? A euphemism for what alternative word? What does it "really mean", what's "the ugly truth"?
The OED, again:3. To add as an additional part to existing possessions (with or without local contiguity).
c1550 tr. P. Vergil Eng. Hist. (1846) I. 57 Julius Cæsar annexed Brittaine to the Romaine emperie.
1684 Scanderbeg Redivivus ii. 10 This Country..has now annext the Great Dukedom of Lithuania.
1800 Duke of Wellington in Dispatches I. 60 The whole country is permanently annexed to the British Empire.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1480013 wrote: As a reward for Stalin's help' or appeasement to stop the Red Army's advance without further loss of life? Possibly a bit of both.
I fear you will have to show a little evidence for either of those interpretations, I have never heard anything like it in any history of the Yalta conference, or any biography of the participants.
Was it not the certifiably insane General Patton who wanted to press straight on to Moscow?
I fear you will have to show a little evidence for either of those interpretations, I have never heard anything like it in any history of the Yalta conference, or any biography of the participants.
Was it not the certifiably insane General Patton who wanted to press straight on to Moscow?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1480015 wrote: I fear you will have to show a little evidence for either of those interpretations, I have never heard anything like it in any history of the Yalta conference, or any biography of the participants.
Was it not the certifiably insane General Patton who wanted to press straight on to Moscow?
As neither you or I was present at Yalta, or at the Summit when Chamberlain declared "peace in our time", how would any of us know for sure what was said or discussed in private amongst the various leaders at that time? It's ALL speculation, but being intelligent people (allegedly) we can "read between the lines". If you were at Yalta, please do let us know, Spot!
Was it not the certifiably insane General Patton who wanted to press straight on to Moscow?
As neither you or I was present at Yalta, or at the Summit when Chamberlain declared "peace in our time", how would any of us know for sure what was said or discussed in private amongst the various leaders at that time? It's ALL speculation, but being intelligent people (allegedly) we can "read between the lines". If you were at Yalta, please do let us know, Spot!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1480016 wrote: As neither you or I was present at Yalta, or at the Summit when Chamberlain declared "peace in our time", how would any of us know for sure what was said or discussed in private amongst the various leaders at that time? It's ALL speculation, but being intelligent people (allegedly) we can "read between the lines". If you were at Yalta, please do let us know, Spot!
I wonder what purpose you see in historians, or their books. Either the diaries and statements of the participants are relevant evidence or they're not. If they are then surely they count for more than "reading between the lines". History is invariably evidence-based or it's simply fiction.
I wonder what purpose you see in historians, or their books. Either the diaries and statements of the participants are relevant evidence or they're not. If they are then surely they count for more than "reading between the lines". History is invariably evidence-based or it's simply fiction.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1480014 wrote: What word would you use instead? Annex has a specific meaning that's been widely used in English since before the Tudors. How can it possibly be a euphemism? A euphemism for what alternative word? What does it "really mean", what's "the ugly truth"?
The OED, again:3. To add as an additional part to existing possessions (with or without local contiguity).
c1550 tr. P. Vergil Eng. Hist. (1846) I. 57 Julius Cæsar annexed Brittaine to the Romaine emperie.
1684 Scanderbeg Redivivus ii. 10 This Country..has now annext the Great Dukedom of Lithuania.
1800 Duke of Wellington in Dispatches I. 60 The whole country is permanently annexed to the British Empire.
As I say, it dumbs down the ugly truths of the butchery of war, and of innocent people, the taking of your freedom, and other things you cherish and hold dear. It disguises the reality behind bland words. Whoever is responsible is beside the point, these terms are used to make the impact of these events more "palatable".
Now stop trying the "headmaster" act Spot. We're not children.
The OED, again:3. To add as an additional part to existing possessions (with or without local contiguity).
c1550 tr. P. Vergil Eng. Hist. (1846) I. 57 Julius Cæsar annexed Brittaine to the Romaine emperie.
1684 Scanderbeg Redivivus ii. 10 This Country..has now annext the Great Dukedom of Lithuania.
1800 Duke of Wellington in Dispatches I. 60 The whole country is permanently annexed to the British Empire.
As I say, it dumbs down the ugly truths of the butchery of war, and of innocent people, the taking of your freedom, and other things you cherish and hold dear. It disguises the reality behind bland words. Whoever is responsible is beside the point, these terms are used to make the impact of these events more "palatable".
Now stop trying the "headmaster" act Spot. We're not children.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Smaug;1480019 wrote: As I say, it dumbs down the ugly truths of the butchery of war, and of innocent people, the taking of your freedom, and other things you cherish and hold dear. It disguises the reality behind bland words. Whoever is responsible is beside the point, these terms are used to make the impact of these events more "palatable".
Now stop trying the "headmaster" act Spot. We're not children.I would if you stopped behaving like one. I'll ask again, how would you re-write "the annexations were all agreed beforehand by Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference" so as to avoid what you see as the euphemism of "annex"? My sentence was a statement of fact - how do you remove the word "annex" while retaining the factually accurate statement? The countries annexed were to have no sovereignty any longer, they were to be "added as an additional part" to the "existing possessions" of the Soviet Union. The clarity of "annexed" is absolute, it's not remotely euphemistic.
Now stop trying the "headmaster" act Spot. We're not children.I would if you stopped behaving like one. I'll ask again, how would you re-write "the annexations were all agreed beforehand by Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference" so as to avoid what you see as the euphemism of "annex"? My sentence was a statement of fact - how do you remove the word "annex" while retaining the factually accurate statement? The countries annexed were to have no sovereignty any longer, they were to be "added as an additional part" to the "existing possessions" of the Soviet Union. The clarity of "annexed" is absolute, it's not remotely euphemistic.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1480020 wrote: I would if you stopped behaving like one. I'll ask again, how would you re-write "the annexations were all agreed beforehand by Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta conference" so as to avoid what you see as the euphemism of "annex"? My sentence was a statement of fact - how do you remove the word "annex" while retaining the factually accurate statement? The countries annexed were to have no sovereignty any longer, they were to be "added as an additional part" to the "existing possessions" of the Soviet Union. The clarity of "annexed" is absolute, it's not remotely euphemistic.
For "Annex"(the euphemism), read occupied, subjugated or stolen. As "extraordinary rendition" was a euphemism for kidnap, illegal detention without trial, and probably torture, as in Guantanamo. So much for absolutes.
For "Annex"(the euphemism), read occupied, subjugated or stolen. As "extraordinary rendition" was a euphemism for kidnap, illegal detention without trial, and probably torture, as in Guantanamo. So much for absolutes.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
Was Afghanistan annexed by the Russians ? I thought it was invaded, occupied, but I am no historian.
I had always thought the difference was invasion was aggressive and against the countries will, while annexation was at least with some sort of agreement, be it for protection or trade or similar.
England annexed loadsa places other wise.
Now......about historical 'Facts' I had always thought the old adage about history being written by the victor to be true.
As the events being spoken about here were written by 'victors' that then continued on different courses after an uneasy alliance to beat a common foe, I suspect there are several versions of that particular 'History'
I had always thought the difference was invasion was aggressive and against the countries will, while annexation was at least with some sort of agreement, be it for protection or trade or similar.
England annexed loadsa places other wise.
Now......about historical 'Facts' I had always thought the old adage about history being written by the victor to be true.
As the events being spoken about here were written by 'victors' that then continued on different courses after an uneasy alliance to beat a common foe, I suspect there are several versions of that particular 'History'
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
FIFA furore
Smaug;1480022 wrote: For "Annex"(the euphemism), read occupied, subjugated or stolen. As "extraordinary rendition" was a euphemism for kidnap, illegal detention without trial, and probably torture, as in Guantanamo. So much for absolutes.
You claim my technical term "disguises the reality behind bland words". I would suggest that's more a matter of unfamiliarity on your part than an attempt to disguise what happened on mine. No substitute term is going to adequately convey "the butchery of war, and of innocent people", as those who have actually experienced it have often made clear.
I hope you're equally prepared to describe British annexations - and by crikey we went in for it on a huge scale over the last three centuries - as equally filled with "the ugly truths of the butchery of war, and of innocent people" the taking of freedom, and other cherished things. Just because we did it to those we described back then in subhuman terms doesn't mean that the displaced or dispossessed of the British Empire were any less victimized than the citizens of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany, Albania and Bulgaria by their Soviet masters.
I suggest that a far higher proportion of residents in these Eastern European countries survived the experience, for one thing. The people who killed those residents in huge numbers were employed by the Nazis, not by the Soviet Union. And if you want to know how the British organized genocide and exploitation, ask an Aboriginal Australian.
You claim my technical term "disguises the reality behind bland words". I would suggest that's more a matter of unfamiliarity on your part than an attempt to disguise what happened on mine. No substitute term is going to adequately convey "the butchery of war, and of innocent people", as those who have actually experienced it have often made clear.
I hope you're equally prepared to describe British annexations - and by crikey we went in for it on a huge scale over the last three centuries - as equally filled with "the ugly truths of the butchery of war, and of innocent people" the taking of freedom, and other cherished things. Just because we did it to those we described back then in subhuman terms doesn't mean that the displaced or dispossessed of the British Empire were any less victimized than the citizens of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany, Albania and Bulgaria by their Soviet masters.
I suggest that a far higher proportion of residents in these Eastern European countries survived the experience, for one thing. The people who killed those residents in huge numbers were employed by the Nazis, not by the Soviet Union. And if you want to know how the British organized genocide and exploitation, ask an Aboriginal Australian.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
Bruv;1480025 wrote: Was Afghanistan annexed by the Russians ? I thought it was invaded, occupied, but I am no historian.
I had always thought the difference was invasion was aggressive and against the countries will, while annexation was at least with some sort of agreement, be it for protection or trade or similar.
If it had been invaded you'd have thought, would you not, that the Afghan Army would have opposed the movement of the Soviet Army into Afghanistan. That's not what happened. The communist Afghan government and their Soviet advisers asked for military support against Pakistan-organized armed insurgents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanist ... Soviet_war is a half-page describing the order of events. Once the Soviet Union's army controlled the country, the USA flooded money and high-tech weaponry to those Afghans who would take it and the resulting war ended in the withdrawal of the Russians and the establishment of the hard-line Islamic Taliban government. Score one for the good old USA, eh.
I had always thought the difference was invasion was aggressive and against the countries will, while annexation was at least with some sort of agreement, be it for protection or trade or similar.
If it had been invaded you'd have thought, would you not, that the Afghan Army would have opposed the movement of the Soviet Army into Afghanistan. That's not what happened. The communist Afghan government and their Soviet advisers asked for military support against Pakistan-organized armed insurgents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanist ... Soviet_war is a half-page describing the order of events. Once the Soviet Union's army controlled the country, the USA flooded money and high-tech weaponry to those Afghans who would take it and the resulting war ended in the withdrawal of the Russians and the establishment of the hard-line Islamic Taliban government. Score one for the good old USA, eh.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
Ah Ha.....so the mutual agreement about annexation does apply in this one then ? Sort of.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
FIFA furore
Annexation doesn't imply any degree of mutual agreement - indeed it requires one party to be subordinate to the other. Where there is a free and equal merger it's often called a Federation, or Union. An annexation is imposed by an annexing power on a powerless unwilling target country.
The United Kingdom, for example, was not annexed by the European Union, it applied to join. Natal and Trinidad and Cyprus, to name a few of many, didn't join the United Kingdom, they were annexed by the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom, for example, was not annexed by the European Union, it applied to join. Natal and Trinidad and Cyprus, to name a few of many, didn't join the United Kingdom, they were annexed by the United Kingdom.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1480030 wrote: Annexation doesn't imply any degree of mutual agreement - indeed it requires one party to be subordinate to the other. Where there is a free and equal merger it's often called a Federation, or Union. An annexation is imposed by an annexing power on a powerless unwilling target country.
The United Kingdom, for example, was not annexed by the European Union, it applied to join. Natal and Trinidad and Cyprus, to name a few of many, didn't join the United Kingdom, they were annexed by the United Kingdom.
Let us hope if we choose to hand notice to the EU of our intention to leave the *cough*Federation or union, that they don't react the same as the Federation leadership when Lech Walesa or Dubcek wanted out, wish I had taken more notice at the time now because I seem to remember lots of ill will all around at different times over the years.......much of the history I lived through was written by the free west come to think of it though......so it may have some bias.
The United Kingdom, for example, was not annexed by the European Union, it applied to join. Natal and Trinidad and Cyprus, to name a few of many, didn't join the United Kingdom, they were annexed by the United Kingdom.
Let us hope if we choose to hand notice to the EU of our intention to leave the *cough*Federation or union, that they don't react the same as the Federation leadership when Lech Walesa or Dubcek wanted out, wish I had taken more notice at the time now because I seem to remember lots of ill will all around at different times over the years.......much of the history I lived through was written by the free west come to think of it though......so it may have some bias.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
FIFA furore
Forget the amiguities of words & their definitions. When it boils down to it, the real term here is the time honoured phrase, "Spoils Of War". It says what it is on the tin.
FIFA furore
Bruv;1480042 wrote: .......much of the history I lived through was written by the free west come to think of it though......so it may have some bias.
I once was lost, but now am found...
He rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith.
I once was lost, but now am found...
He rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
FourPart;1480043 wrote: Forget the amiguities of words & their definitions. When it boils down to it, the real term here is the time honoured phrase, "Spoils Of War". It says what it is on the tin.
The Soviet Union was no doubt delighted to provide communist governance for the countries it had occupied but the essential demand at Yalta was the provision of buffer states against further aggression. The Soviet Union had by 1945 lost 14.2% of its 1939 population and rescued mainland Europe from indefinite Nazi domination. Taking control of the foreign and economic policies of all the buffer states was its major demand as the war drew to a close. It doesn't seem an unreasonable demand. It prevented the remilitarization of Greater Germany for forty years.
Just for comparison, that rate of war-related Soviet Union mortality during World War Two is 15 times that of Britain's, and 45 times that of the USA.
The Soviet Union was no doubt delighted to provide communist governance for the countries it had occupied but the essential demand at Yalta was the provision of buffer states against further aggression. The Soviet Union had by 1945 lost 14.2% of its 1939 population and rescued mainland Europe from indefinite Nazi domination. Taking control of the foreign and economic policies of all the buffer states was its major demand as the war drew to a close. It doesn't seem an unreasonable demand. It prevented the remilitarization of Greater Germany for forty years.
Just for comparison, that rate of war-related Soviet Union mortality during World War Two is 15 times that of Britain's, and 45 times that of the USA.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1480026 wrote: You claim my technical term "disguises the reality behind bland words". I would suggest that's more a matter of unfamiliarity on your part than an attempt to disguise what happened on mine. No substitute term is going to adequately convey "the butchery of war, and of innocent people", as those who have actually experienced it have often made clear.
I hope you're equally prepared to describe British annexations - and by crikey we went in for it on a huge scale over the last three centuries - as equally filled with "the ugly truths of the butchery of war, and of innocent people" the taking of freedom, and other cherished things. Just because we did it to those we described back then in subhuman terms doesn't mean that the displaced or dispossessed of the British Empire were any less victimized than the citizens of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany, Albania and Bulgaria by their Soviet masters.
I suggest that a far higher proportion of residents in these Eastern European countries survived the experience, for one thing. The people who killed those residents in huge numbers were employed by the Nazis, not by the Soviet Union. And if you want to know how the British organized genocide and exploitation, ask an Aboriginal Australian.
Well, it looks like we've all got our opinions of the word "annex", and we've all seen how it is both accurate (the definition) and mis-leading (not telling the full story), IMO.
I'm bound to agree that Britain has "annexed" many nations in it's time (hence the Commonwealth,mainly). Indeed, look at an old world map and we see about 1/3 of it is red, indicating British territory. According to definition, it was all "annexed". Such an innocuous word for so much suffering, tyrrany and abuse.
As for you attempting to disguise the reality of invasion/occupation of nations behind a bland word, it's somewhat unfortunate, because it's a word most historical accounts use, especially modern ones, and this is most definitely NOT your fault, Spot.
My point of contention is that it is a wholly inadequate word to express subjugation, and all it's ramifications. As for being unfamiliar with the term "annex", that is totally untrue and rather presumptious of you; I have used it myself on similar topics, though I dislike the word (for the above mentioned reasons).
My apologies in advance if any "typos" or spelling errors occur in any of my posts, it will be this chuffing Toshiba laptop, the keyboard is summed up in one word; namely, crapcrapcrapcrappitycrap!! VERY frustrating.
I hope you're equally prepared to describe British annexations - and by crikey we went in for it on a huge scale over the last three centuries - as equally filled with "the ugly truths of the butchery of war, and of innocent people" the taking of freedom, and other cherished things. Just because we did it to those we described back then in subhuman terms doesn't mean that the displaced or dispossessed of the British Empire were any less victimized than the citizens of Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany, Albania and Bulgaria by their Soviet masters.
I suggest that a far higher proportion of residents in these Eastern European countries survived the experience, for one thing. The people who killed those residents in huge numbers were employed by the Nazis, not by the Soviet Union. And if you want to know how the British organized genocide and exploitation, ask an Aboriginal Australian.
Well, it looks like we've all got our opinions of the word "annex", and we've all seen how it is both accurate (the definition) and mis-leading (not telling the full story), IMO.
I'm bound to agree that Britain has "annexed" many nations in it's time (hence the Commonwealth,mainly). Indeed, look at an old world map and we see about 1/3 of it is red, indicating British territory. According to definition, it was all "annexed". Such an innocuous word for so much suffering, tyrrany and abuse.
As for you attempting to disguise the reality of invasion/occupation of nations behind a bland word, it's somewhat unfortunate, because it's a word most historical accounts use, especially modern ones, and this is most definitely NOT your fault, Spot.
My point of contention is that it is a wholly inadequate word to express subjugation, and all it's ramifications. As for being unfamiliar with the term "annex", that is totally untrue and rather presumptious of you; I have used it myself on similar topics, though I dislike the word (for the above mentioned reasons).
My apologies in advance if any "typos" or spelling errors occur in any of my posts, it will be this chuffing Toshiba laptop, the keyboard is summed up in one word; namely, crapcrapcrapcrappitycrap!! VERY frustrating.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
FIFA furore
'Buffer state' .......yet another euphemism ?
The relative mortality rates could of course be due to the fact that they were fighting on their own door step under extreme weather conditions.
The relative mortality rates could of course be due to the fact that they were fighting on their own door step under extreme weather conditions.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
FIFA furore
spot;1480052 wrote: The Soviet Union was no doubt delighted to provide communist governance for the countries it had occupied but the essential demand at Yalta was the provision of buffer states against further aggression. The Soviet Union had by 1945 lost 14.2% of its 1939 population and rescued mainland Europe from indefinite Nazi domination. Taking control of the foreign and economic policies of all the buffer states was its major demand as the war drew to a close. It doesn't seem an unreasonable demand. It prevented the remilitarization of Greater Germany for forty years.
Just for comparison, that rate of war-related Soviet Union mortality during World War Two is 15 times that of Britain's, and 45 times that of the USA.
The responsibility for significant proportion of the Soviet losses during WWII can be directly laid at the feet of the Fearless Leader, himself.
Just for comparison, that rate of war-related Soviet Union mortality during World War Two is 15 times that of Britain's, and 45 times that of the USA.
The responsibility for significant proportion of the Soviet losses during WWII can be directly laid at the feet of the Fearless Leader, himself.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
FIFA furore
Bruv;1480057 wrote: 'Buffer state' .......yet another euphemism ?
No it damn well isn't, it's English.
If you see "annex" in future, all you need do is to mentally add the inevitable implication of the ugly truths of the butchery of war and of innocent people, the taking of freedom and other cherished things - that's all part of the word, it's the background to the forcible removal of sovereignty.
If you see "buffer state", it means exactly what it says. The OED is a bit more restrictive than my understanding of the word - they say "to designate a state, zone, etc., lying between two others, usually owing allegiance to neither, and serving as a means of preventing hostilities between them". It makes more sense to me to see the space from two different angles - one man's buffer state may be the other man's enemy border.
Quite possibly the Soviet Union saw the Warsaw Pact nations as buffer states but Western Europe regarded them as the front line of an upcoming World War Three. Either way, you can see why the Soviet Union insisted on indefinitely extending their influence as far as Berlin.
It dates back to Victorian times: 1876 B. Frere in W. B. Worsfold Sir B. Frere (1923) 43 "Using the Afghans as a ‘buffer’ to avoid immediate contact between our frontier and the Russian", and the reason for it is shown here: 1860 J. Tyndall Glaciers of Alps i. §2. 9 "The shock..is harmless when distributed over the interval necessary for the pushing in of the buffer".
If you don't like buffer state, how about crumple zone?
No it damn well isn't, it's English.
If you see "annex" in future, all you need do is to mentally add the inevitable implication of the ugly truths of the butchery of war and of innocent people, the taking of freedom and other cherished things - that's all part of the word, it's the background to the forcible removal of sovereignty.
If you see "buffer state", it means exactly what it says. The OED is a bit more restrictive than my understanding of the word - they say "to designate a state, zone, etc., lying between two others, usually owing allegiance to neither, and serving as a means of preventing hostilities between them". It makes more sense to me to see the space from two different angles - one man's buffer state may be the other man's enemy border.
Quite possibly the Soviet Union saw the Warsaw Pact nations as buffer states but Western Europe regarded them as the front line of an upcoming World War Three. Either way, you can see why the Soviet Union insisted on indefinitely extending their influence as far as Berlin.
It dates back to Victorian times: 1876 B. Frere in W. B. Worsfold Sir B. Frere (1923) 43 "Using the Afghans as a ‘buffer’ to avoid immediate contact between our frontier and the Russian", and the reason for it is shown here: 1860 J. Tyndall Glaciers of Alps i. §2. 9 "The shock..is harmless when distributed over the interval necessary for the pushing in of the buffer".
If you don't like buffer state, how about crumple zone?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
LarsMac;1480058 wrote: The responsibility for significant proportion of the Soviet losses during WWII can be directly laid at the feet of the Fearless Leader, himself.
Absolutely. Definitely. I quite agree. On the other hand, had Operation Barbarossa succeeded, Soviet casualties may of course have been a great deal higher still - it was Nazi Germany's policy to replace the population of the Soviet Union with all the displaced populations of Eastern Europe, thereby enabling their ultimate strategy of Lebensraum to proceed. That's an awful lot of dead Russians.
And responsibility for the Soviet victory? If you do the one, you have to do the other since there was nobody else in ultimate command: responsibility for the Soviet victory has to be directly laid at the feet of the Fearless Leader too.
Absolutely. Definitely. I quite agree. On the other hand, had Operation Barbarossa succeeded, Soviet casualties may of course have been a great deal higher still - it was Nazi Germany's policy to replace the population of the Soviet Union with all the displaced populations of Eastern Europe, thereby enabling their ultimate strategy of Lebensraum to proceed. That's an awful lot of dead Russians.
And responsibility for the Soviet victory? If you do the one, you have to do the other since there was nobody else in ultimate command: responsibility for the Soviet victory has to be directly laid at the feet of the Fearless Leader too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
spot;1480061 wrote: Absolutely. Definitely. I quite agree. On the other hand, had Operation Barbarossa succeeded, Soviet casualties may of course have been a great deal higher still - it was Nazi Germany's policy to replace the population of the Soviet Union with all the displaced populations of Eastern Europe, thereby enabling their ultimate strategy of Lebensraum to proceed. That's an awful lot of dead Russians.
And responsibility for the Soviet victory? If you do the one, you have to do the other since there was nobody else in ultimate command: responsibility for the Soviet victory has to be directly laid at the feet of the Fearless Leader too.
No doubt.
He was quite the impressive individual. He nearly single-handedly dragged Russia from the 18th century feudalism into the 20th century industrialism. Had he not died when he did, the rest of the 20th century would have looked much different.
It was my opinion that he should have been the Time Person of the Century. While Einstein, Hitler, Roosevelt, and Gandhi all had their strong points, it was Uncle Joe who truly shaped the century.
That is what drives Putin's popularity in Russia. There are still many who long for the days of Uncle Joe.
And, if that doesn't scare the bejesus out of you, you don't really understand Human Nature.
And responsibility for the Soviet victory? If you do the one, you have to do the other since there was nobody else in ultimate command: responsibility for the Soviet victory has to be directly laid at the feet of the Fearless Leader too.
No doubt.
He was quite the impressive individual. He nearly single-handedly dragged Russia from the 18th century feudalism into the 20th century industrialism. Had he not died when he did, the rest of the 20th century would have looked much different.
It was my opinion that he should have been the Time Person of the Century. While Einstein, Hitler, Roosevelt, and Gandhi all had their strong points, it was Uncle Joe who truly shaped the century.
That is what drives Putin's popularity in Russia. There are still many who long for the days of Uncle Joe.
And, if that doesn't scare the bejesus out of you, you don't really understand Human Nature.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
FIFA furore
Dying in 1953 was his final gift to the nation, he was becoming quite a scary fellow by that stage.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
FIFA furore
Just an observance, nothing more to add......other than.......
Annex, my old school had an annex, it was an integral part of the school, it was a satellite, a useful addition,an overflow.
Buffers, cars have buffers, in the US they call then fenders I believe,in the UK they are bumpers, bumpers or fenders are a sacrificial extra. Part of the car but expendable, bolt on, throw away extras, only there for one reason.
Castles in ye olde tymes had buffer zones called moats, nobody annexed the moat, using it as an extended living area of the castle.
Is there a need to annex a buffer zone ?..............and finally, ridiculously, what if we all used people strapped to our cars as crumple zones, fenders or bumpers ?
Annex, my old school had an annex, it was an integral part of the school, it was a satellite, a useful addition,an overflow.
Buffers, cars have buffers, in the US they call then fenders I believe,in the UK they are bumpers, bumpers or fenders are a sacrificial extra. Part of the car but expendable, bolt on, throw away extras, only there for one reason.
Castles in ye olde tymes had buffer zones called moats, nobody annexed the moat, using it as an extended living area of the castle.
Is there a need to annex a buffer zone ?..............and finally, ridiculously, what if we all used people strapped to our cars as crumple zones, fenders or bumpers ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
FIFA furore
Bruv;1480064 wrote: Just an observance, nothing more to add......other than.......
Annex, my old school had an annex, it was an integral part of the school, it was a satellite, a useful addition,an overflow.
Buffers, cars have buffers, in the US they call then fenders I believe,in the UK they are bumpers, bumpers or fenders are a sacrificial extra. Part of the car but expendable, bolt on, throw away extras, only there for one reason.
Castles in ye olde tymes had buffer zones called moats, nobody annexed the moat, using it as an extended living area of the castle.
Is there a need to annex a buffer zone ?..............and finally, ridiculously, what if we all used people strapped to our cars as crumple zones, fenders or bumpers ?
The inadequacy of words to "sum up" a situation is seen well here. I like the "microcosmic" comparison, Bruv! Very apt.
Annex, my old school had an annex, it was an integral part of the school, it was a satellite, a useful addition,an overflow.
Buffers, cars have buffers, in the US they call then fenders I believe,in the UK they are bumpers, bumpers or fenders are a sacrificial extra. Part of the car but expendable, bolt on, throw away extras, only there for one reason.
Castles in ye olde tymes had buffer zones called moats, nobody annexed the moat, using it as an extended living area of the castle.
Is there a need to annex a buffer zone ?..............and finally, ridiculously, what if we all used people strapped to our cars as crumple zones, fenders or bumpers ?
The inadequacy of words to "sum up" a situation is seen well here. I like the "microcosmic" comparison, Bruv! Very apt.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.