Irony of Democrats Celebrating the 4th of July.......

[Bengalzona]

(07-05-2018, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I saw someone post something yesterday about how the whole world should celebrate our Independence Day because without us the rest of the world would be under fascist or communist rule. I'm not sure how sincere they were, but it was very interesting.

Fascist rule? No. The Soviets would have beat down Hitler with or without us. We just shortened the war and reduced casualties for them. They whipped Japan so bad at Khalkhin Gol in 1939 that for the remainder of the war, the Japanese wanted nothing to do with them. This is not to say that we could not have gone it alone also. We could have and would have won.

Communist rule? Doubtful. The Soviet Union under Stalin's brand of communism (and his successors) wasn't so big on exporting it. They were more focused on internal situations (and well that they should have been after collectivization, the Depression, World Wars I and II and an internal Civil War). When they did capture territory (such as Eastern Europe) or support Communists in other countries (Korea, China, and Vietnam), their aims were more national-based than establishing a worldwide collective (i.e. Trotsky-ism). Communist governments were established in Eastern Europe to act as a buffer zone against any future invasion. Likewise, supporting the installation of communist regimes in China and Korea was also about establishing buffer zones and insuring favorable governments in neighboring nations. Vietnam is an exception as they do not share a border with the Soviet Union. But interest there was more based upon Chinese national interests and buffer zones (still nationalistic).

Would the Soviets have felt a need to establish these buffer zones if the U.S. were not around? I believe they would have. In the Russian view, they have been invaded four or five times from Western Europe and they were/are a bit fed up with it. China has always been a potential threat just by sheer size of the population and their location on the Eastern frontier. I don't think the Soviets imagined that the Chinese communists would develop the independent attitudes they did.

Without the U.S. in the world, the Soviets would have taken Germany and held it (pretty much what they did with East Germany). But I doubt they would have moved to take additional countries in Europe. Invading other countries for conquest takes a lot of treasure and resources. A country needs to have it's internal situations in order in order to do that. I don't think the Soviets were ever in a position to consider that, or would have been.

Japan probably would have left the Soviets alone. The Japanese Army couldn't even complete the defeat the Chinese on the ground. They were nasty-ass fighters on the islands in the Pacific (as we found out). But in situations where maneuvering large groups of troops and heavy armor came into play, they were not able to do that well.

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 12:07 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Fascist rule? No. The Soviets would have beat down Hitler with or without us. We just shortened the war and reduced casualties for them. They whipped Japan so bad at Khalkhin Gol in 1939 that for the remainder of the war, the Japanese wanted nothing to do with them. This is not to say that we could not have gone it alone also. We could have and would have won.

Communist rule? Doubtful. The Soviet Union under Stalin's brand of communism (and his successors) wasn't so big on exporting it. They were more focused on internal situations (and well that they should have been after collectivization, the Depression, World Wars I and II and an internal Civil War). When they did capture territory (such as Eastern Europe) or support Communists in other countries (Korea, China, and Vietnam), their aims were more national-based than establishing a worldwide collective (i.e. Trotsky-ism). Communist governments were established in Eastern Europe to act as a buffer zone against any future invasion. Likewise, supporting the installation of communist regimes in China and Korea was also about establishing buffer zones and insuring favorable governments in neighboring nations. Vietnam is an exception as they do not share a border with the Soviet Union. But interest there was more based upon Chinese national interests and buffer zones (still nationalistic).

Would the Soviets have felt a need to establish these buffer zones if the U.S. were not around? I believe they would have. In the Russian view, they have been invaded four or five times from Western Europe and they were/are a bit fed up with it. China has always been a potential threat just by sheer size of the population and their location on the Eastern frontier. I don't think the Soviets imagined that the Chinese communists would develop the independent attitudes they did.

Without the U.S. in the world, the Soviets would have taken Germany and held it (pretty much what they did with East Germany). But I doubt they would have moved to take additional countries in Europe. Invading other countries for conquest takes a lot of treasure and resources. A country needs to have it's internal situations in order in order to do that. I don't think the Soviets were ever in a position to consider that, or would have been.

Japan probably would have left the Soviets alone. The Japanese Army couldn't even complete the defeat the Chinese on the ground. They were nasty-ass fighters on the islands in the Pacific (as we found out). But in situations where maneuvering large groups of troops and heavy armor came into play, they were not able to do that well.

You know I didn't agree with his assertion, right? I actually saw this on a subreddit called /r/shitamericanssay which puts on display the idiocy of some Americans. Just wanted to make sure this was clear.

[hollodero]

(07-05-2018, 12:07 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Fascist rule? No. The Soviets would have beat down Hitler with or without us. 

You're certain about that?
Given the what if's, what if Japan had never attacked Pearl Harbor, but had gone after Russia with full force instead? They'd had the two frontier war, and a huge gap to bridge.
Whilst he US maybe would have stayed out, relieving the Axis somewhat from the two frontier war.

[fredtoast]

(07-04-2018, 10:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I realize it was a different time and different circumstances, but it still just points to how hilarious the Democratic party is:

No more ironic than Republicans who say we should force people to honor the flag that was the symbol of revolutionaries who said you can not force anyone to honor a flag.

Our founders envisioned a country where everyone would be free from mandatory acts of "patriotism"

[Bengalzona]

(07-05-2018, 12:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You know I didn't agree with his assertion, right? I actually saw this on a subreddit called /r/shitamericanssay which puts on display the idiocy of some Americans. Just wanted to make sure this was clear.

I know.

(07-05-2018, 12:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: You're certain about that?
Given the what if's, what if Japan had never attacked Pearl Harbor, but had gone after Russia with full force instead? They'd had the two frontier war, and a huge gap to bridge.
Whilst he US maybe would have stayed out, relieving the Axis somewhat from the two frontier war.

Japan's ground forces were weak in comparison to Germany or the Soviet Union. Their armor was light and development was years behind those two. Much of the other Japanese equipment was faulty or second-rate. The Japanese ground forces were able to give us a hard time because they were on the defense on jungle islands where armor and maneuver were limited. But outside of the jungle, they were weak. This is why their attempt to take China slowed and halted.

The Soviets demonstrated this to the Japanese when the Japanese decided to test them at Khalkhin Gol, Mongolia in 1939 (https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/07/war_in_the_east_how_khalkhin-gol_changed_the_course_of_wwii_24603). Despite Hitler's encouragement for the Japanese to open a second front against the Soviets, the Japanese would never challenge the Soviets again. The defeat was that severe. That was actual history that did not involve the U.S. at all.

It was always only a matter of time in the West between Germany and the Soviets. Hitler needed to "get it done quick" there, and he was not able to. Once again, this was the actual history without the U.S. being involved. After 1941, it was all a matter of numbers... overwhelming numbers. The fascit dream died at the gates of Moscow in 1941.

[hollodero]

(07-05-2018, 01:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The Soviets demonstrated this to the Japanese when the Japanese decided to test them at Khalkhin Gol, Mongolia in 1939 (https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/07/war_in_the_east_how_khalkhin-gol_changed_the_course_of_wwii_24603).

I learned two things from that. First, "hinterland" is an English word somehow. Second, you might be right. I'm still not sure, as the Japanese seemed to have learned throughout the ensuing months and I can't quite imagine the Russian forces staying that superior, especially after moving that mighty general and all that forces to the west. But, you're probably right.
I guess we won't celebrate the US independence day then. We should share Russian holidays though.

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 01:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: I learned two things from that. First, "hinterland" is an English word somehow.

Modern English is kind of an amalgamation between Germanic and Romantic languages. Old English was entirely Germanic. Then the Normans introduced their language to shift us to Middle English. Then the great vowel shift moved us to modern English. So the English of present day is a mash-up, which is why there are similarities to German languages within.

Note, this is a very simplified accounting of what happened to the language.

[hollodero]

(07-05-2018, 01:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Modern English is kind of an amalgamation between Germanic and Romantic languages. Old English was entirely Germanic. Then the Normans introduced their language to shift us to Middle English. Then the great vowel shift moved us to modern English. So the English of present day is a mash-up, which is why there are similarities to German languages within.

Note, this is a very simplified accounting of what happened to the language.

I'm not sure if that's entirely the explanation. "hinterland" has the word "hinten" in it, which does have a distinct translation itself. Similar things go for kindergarten or schadenfreude or bratwurst and all those words. I always rather figured it's German immigrants who kept this speech islands in the language.
I think Brits don't use these words, not entirely sure though. Also, the word blitzkrieg sure wasn't around when the language shifted from Germanic to English.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-05-2018, 01:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: I learned two things from that. First, "hinterland" is an English word somehow. Second, you might be right. I'm still not sure, as the Japanese seemed to have learned throughout the ensuing months and I can't quite imagine the Russian forces staying that superior, especially after moving that mighty general and all that forces to the west. But, you're probably right.
I guess we won't celebrate the US independence day then. We should share Russian holidays though.

I've found it easier to just say "you're right.  Otherwise you have a tome headed your way.

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 01:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not sure if that's entirely the explanation. "hinterland" has the word "hinten" in it, which does have a distinct translation itself. Similar things go for kindergarten or schadenfreude or bratwurst and all those words. I always rather figured it's German immigrants who kept this speech islands in the language.
I think Brits don't use these words, not entirely sure though. Also, the word blitzkrieg sure wasn't around when the language shifted from Germanic to English.

Just keep in mind that Old English is in the same language family as Old Frisian, Old Saxon, and Old High German. It's one of the reasons that our language structure is closer to Germanic languages than Romantic ones. There are probably a ton of possible explanations, but this shared origin is a big reason for a lot of things like this.

(07-05-2018, 01:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I've found it easier to just say "you're right.  Otherwise you have a tome headed your way.

How else am I supposed to procrastinate at work?

[Bengalzona]

(07-05-2018, 01:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: I learned two things from that. First, "hinterland" is an English word somehow.

 
LOL!

You've probably heard the old joke: Other languages borrow words and phrases from each other. English jumps them in a back alley, beats them up and steals whatever loose words and phrases they can find.

Quote:Second, you might be right. I'm still not sure, as the Japanese seemed to have learned throughout the ensuing months and I can't quite imagine the Russian forces staying that superior, especially after moving that mighty general and all that forces to the west. But, you're probably right.

The Soviets still maintained a sizeable army in the East even after Zhukov and his troops left. The difference between the two was primarily in heavy weapons such as tanks, artillery and weapons and in tactics (the Soviets had one of the earliest and best combined arms doctrines), which were pretty standardized throughout the Red Army. That combined with the terrain (mostly flat steppes) put the Japanese at an extreme disadvantage.

The Japanese could have challenged the Soviets if they had changed their emphasis from naval power. The political infighting between the Japanese Army and the Japanese Navy in the 1920's and 1930's was legendary. Ultimately, the Navy won out and received more emphasis. Tank development was pretty much scrapped, as well as armor and combined arms tactics (really important for that time in history).

Quote:I guess we won't celebrate the US independence day then. We should share Russian holidays though.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-05-2018, 01:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not sure if that's entirely the explanation. "hinterland" has the word "hinten" in it, which does have a distinct translation itself. Similar things go for kindergarten or schadenfreude or bratwurst and all those words. I always rather figured it's German immigrants who kept this speech islands in the language.
I think Brits don't use these words, not entirely sure though. Also, the word blitzkrieg sure wasn't around when the language shifted from Germanic to English.

Certainly words are added to the language due to immigration and such.  We don't say "kinder"(soft i) and we don't say "garten" but we say them together so I'm guessing that's an adopted word.  

As far as blitzkrieg, the Normans made that up when they invaded England.  

[hollodero]

(07-05-2018, 01:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The Soviets still maintained a sizeable army in the East even after Zhukov and his troops left. The difference between the two was primarily in heavy weapons such as tanks, artillery and weapons and in tactics (the Soviets had one of the earliest and best combined arms doctrines), which were pretty standardized throughout the Red Army. That combined with the terrain (mostly flat steppes) put the Japanese at an extreme disadvantage.

The Japanese could have challenged the Soviets if they had changed their emphasis from naval power. The political infighting between the Japanese Army and the Japanese Navy in the 1920's and 1930's was legendary. Ultimately, the Navy won out and received more emphasis. Tank development was pretty much scrapped, as well as armor and combined arms tactics (really important for that time in history).

Ah that last one I know from playing civilization, whilst the rest of my assertions mainly stem from playing memoir 44. Because of this profound advantage of knowledge I gained by that, it would be unfair to keep challenging your assertions. Right.

Of course, what you say makes perfect sense and is fueled by facts I do not know about, so now I fully believe you. Furthermore, I now believe the Japanese screwed it up for my grandparents.

[hollodero]

(07-05-2018, 01:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Certainly words are added to the language due to immigration and such.  We don't say "kinder"(soft i) and we don't say "garten" but we say them together so I'm guessing that's an adopted word.  

As far as blitzkrieg, the Normans made that up when they invaded England.  

"child's garden" would sound weird anyway.
As weird as the word we're using.

Also, I think blitzkrieg dates back to the age of Zeus.

[BmorePat87]

(07-05-2018, 09:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I noticed this, as well. I saw something about it being the day we won our independence and things of that nature. I cringed a bit because I feel like far too many people don't understand what the day really represents.

Independence Day celebrates the ratification of our Declaration of Independence. This was a letter written to King George III to notify him of our intention to no longer be a part of his kingdom. The war was a year old, the revolution was 11 years old, and the war would continue for another 7 years. Independence Day isn't about war, it is about ideas. It is about the letter. That seems to be lost in today's celebrations of the day.

Crazy that we have a celebration of the spreading of the idea of freedom and not the date of the Paris peace treaty...