The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Curios and Relics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 11, 2010, 04:59 PM   #101
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 15,247
Quote:
also, I thought Poland wasn't a Sovereign nation of the Soviet Pact (or however you call it) until after WWII.
The Warsaw Pact (actually called Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance) was signed in 1955 as a response to the formation of NATO. That was 10 years after the end of WW2.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Scorch is offline  
Old June 11, 2010, 09:21 PM   #102
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
and this thread is still going? WOW!


Quote:
"scorched earth" is practiced by retreating armies; advancing armies don't destroy what they have captured.
Quite true, with the caveat that advancing armies do LOOT what they capture.

The Red Army, in particular did a very thorough job of that. Especially when they got to Germany. Entire factories, and nearly everything else, were packed up and sent east. Soviet troops were told it was all theirs for the taking. Including Germany's women. And they did. The war in the east, from beginning to end was unlike the war anywhere else in Europe. It was more like a religious war, fascism against communism, with all the hatred of past centuries added in.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 12, 2010, 09:21 PM   #103
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Not to condone some of the things the Red Army did in Germany, but we have to consider what the German Army, and the SS, did in Russia.

Yes, it had aspects of a religious war, and not just in the East. Remember Eisenhower called it a "crusade" (a following of the Cross) which has definite religious conotations. (A fact that the Moslems immediately picked up on when Bush used the term; they took it to mean that the U.S. was engaged in a religious war to destroy Islam and Christainize the middle east.)

Jim
James K is offline  
Old June 13, 2010, 11:55 AM   #104
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
The joy of English....

Is not only how flexible a language it is, but also how easily it can be misinterpreted from the speaker's intent, and still be within proper formal definition of the words. All the way down to "it depends what the meaning of "is" is!

Interesting about the use of the word "crusade"...I suppose it was, in the current modern usage of the word, on all sides. In Western society today, we use the word "crusade" as any struggle against a perceived wrong, something that is moral and ethical to do. And the religious aspect is seldom the main focus.

I believe that there should be a clearly understood difference between the use of "crusade" and "Crusade". I can clearly understand the difference in view point between those with a Christian heritage and those with a Muslim heritage. Christianity considered the Crusade(s) right, moral, and just. Of course, what went on during the Crusades was an entirely different matter ( its that whole "can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" thing, I think).

And, if one has even a bit of empathy, its easy to see how the Muslims on the other side of the Crusades wouldn't think that way. Probably why today's Muslims automatically associate the term "crusade" with a bad thing, and we don't.

Now there's an interesting dichotomy, we, (as Constitutionalists) believe strongly in the original intent of the Founding Fathers, given to us through their writings and our history. Muslim society is also very focused on original intent of their Founder(s). Very different starting points, to be sure, only having in common the belief in the rightness of the cause, and the emphasis on the original intent of the movement.

And that brings us back to the war (both then and now), or I suppose, all wars throughout time. The belief in the "rightness" of the cause, and the degree of willingness to go to any extreme in the process.

I used the term religious war in describing the war in the east in the sense that both the Germans and the Soviets had few, if any rules about the treatment of those in their power. Unlike the US, (and by extension the Western Allies) who used a codified set of rules for the treatment of prisoners and people of occupied territory (enforced by our laws), the Axis powers, and the Soviets seldom paid much attention to the few rules that they did have.

All sides commit violations of the proper treatment of prisoners and occupied peoples. The side that does it the least, and has an active policy to prevent it, are the good guys. The other side is, by definition, the bad guys. Especially when they are also the losers.

I don't mean to come off sounding like an apologist for either the Nazis or the Reds. I'm not. What I am is a realist. The capability for the greatest evil walks the earth daily, wearing human skin, in all nations and peoples. When the leaders, rulers, God, etc. tells us that it is not just allowed, but it the "right" thing to do, that evil is unleashed.

One of my hobbies for many years, has been the study of WW II, focusing mainly on the equipment. The guns, and all the machines of war used in that great conflict. One also learns quite a bit about all the other things involved as well. And some clear insights into the nature of man are revealed as well.

I have no empathy for those who ordered and condoned atrocities, only for those, on all sides, who were caught up in something so much bigger than themselves, doing what they had to do, being tarred with the same brush in history as those who were actually responsible.

But that too, is the nature of man. History is written by the victors.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 13, 2010, 12:38 PM   #105
grumpa72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2009
Posts: 487
You guys certainly have hijacked this thread and gotten waaaaay off topic.
grumpa72 is offline  
Old July 5, 2010, 01:35 PM   #106
godot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 105
There was some armed resistance in the Polish-Jewish quarter.

Some of these people, no doubt used zip guns. Most of these Jews were killed or sent to the camps. It's not likely that anyone was able to sneak a zip gun into the camps.

Most zip guns are very lucky to even fire 20 times, let alone get a one shot kill.

There may be a gun and the gun may have killed an officer. I think over the years this story has been told & retold so many times that this story has taken on a life of it's own. In a few years, the gun may have been used to kill an entire division.
godot is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07408 seconds with 10 queries