Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sergarr]

WW1 had much less effect on civilians than WW2.  Death of civilians and cities turned in pile of rubble demonstrated that war is a bad thing

Ironically, most Russian cities were left untouched in WW2 and Russian civilians have seen very little war with few exceptions.

Seeing as these exceptions include Leningrad (was almost starved to death, with hundreds of thousands of casualties) and all the families that had their relatives killed on the front (i.e. most of them), I'm not sure if I catch your point.

[mainiac]

I imagine his point is that the countries occupied by the Nazis such as Ukraine, the Baltics and Belarus had it much worse.

[Comrade P.]

I imagine his point is that the countries occupied by the Nazis such as Ukraine, the Baltics and Belarus had it much worse.

All of those were the same country back at the time.

[mainiac]

Man it sure sucks how the white people drove Americans like me off the land in the trail of tears.  Pity me for it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

My point is that most modern Russians has no ancestors who had war at their home. Sure, many have granddad veterans who have seen the war as soldiers. Many have their male relatives not coming home from the front. Some of ancestors lived in Stalingrad and Leningrad. But majority had no one to tell them stories about the war and see WW2 strictly through propaganda as something grand and time of Russian glory not as the worst time in history of Europe as most European countries remember it.

Oh, and one more:

European elites are mostly grandchildren of people who suffered from the war. Russian elites are mostly grandchildren of communists who had luxurious safe live during the war.

[Sergarr]

Maybe I've read wrong propaganda, but I never heard or read anyone claiming that WW2 was "time of Russian glory". More like "time of Russian suffering and nation-wide gigantic effort with ridiculous casualties for every meter of the land fought". Even contemporary propaganda did not label that war as something "glorious". I've read enough memoirs to know that it wasn't glorious at all.

It feels like you're trying to construct some narrative about Russians, and I don't like where you're going with it.

[martinuzz]

Last time GB was invaded was somewhere in the 70s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDJMn-534Y

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Maybe I've read wrong propaganda, but I never heard or read anyone claiming that WW2 was "time of Russian glory". More like "time of Russian suffering and nation-wide gigantic effort with ridiculous casualties for every meter of the land fought". Even contemporary propaganda did not label that war as something "glorious". I've read enough memoirs to know that it wasn't glorious at all.

It feels like you're trying to construct some narrative about Russians, and I don't like where you're going with it.

Read memoirs? Did majority of Russians read it too? Nope

There are three ways how average person learns history:
1) What their parents say to them
2) What they see in mass culture
3) What government says them in schools

You say " nation-wide gigantic effort". Don't you see that this sounds like something nice to repeat? To have to be proud of again, unlike modern peaceful Russia with no place for heroism, courage, devotion.

You can call me not objective as much as you want, but I see that Russians have huge nostalgia and want to repeat what their grandfathers did - defeat strong enemy. Bring back the times when their country was respected, when fate humanity depended on them.

[mainiac]

If Russia doesn't want to brag about winning WW2 singlehandedly with no help from anyone, America is more then willing to pick up the slack.

Okay not with no help from anyone, Canada helped!

Last time GB was invaded was somewhere in the 70s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDJMn-534Y

This is why Scotland can't be allowed out of the union.  What if it happens again?

[Sergarr]

You say " nation-wide gigantic effort". Don't you see that this sounds like something nice to repeat? To have to be proud of again, unlike modern peaceful Russia with no place for heroism, courage, devotion.

You can call me not objective as much as you want, but I see that Russians have huge nostalgia and want to repeat what their grandfathers did - defeat strong enemy. Bring back the times when their country was respected, when fate humanity depended on them.

While some people in Russia may want to defeat strong enemy, I say that many more people do not want to lose their relatives, their friends, or their lives, and thus do not want any big war to actually happen. Soldiers are not usually particularly proud of killing people, too. I know that because my father was a soldier in Afghanistan. The only moments he was actually proud of is when he managed to stop people (some Pushtu tribes) from fighting Soviet troops by walking to them practically unarmed for negotiations in a language he barely understood. I still don't know how he managed to do that.

I'd prefer to defeat nature rather than other humans. Nature doesn't tend to kill millions of your people in return. Defeating nature also has a much higher return on "respect" and "defining fate of humanity" ratings.

[smjjames]

I think it might have been a thing I read in one book or study, it might have not been "Survival" but something else and apparently it's not a universally known/accepted thing as I believed. And before anyone says MAD was about "survival" too, MAS (or whatever it was) was, if I remember correctly, more along the lines of open co-operation between blocks, less/no nukes and more/just ICBM defense systems. Basically idea where superpowers co-exist not because they fear the weapons other side has but because they know both side's defenses are strong enough not to even bother launching nuclear attack. And of course just, you know, co-operation and peaceful co-existence and stuff.
I'm saying all this out of my head and thus it's all pretty vague. Can't remember where I read that as said (I have an idea though) or even if I did. Could be I just mixed bunch of stuff.

You do know how Europe functioned before nuclear weapons were invented, right? There were wars every single generation or two. ICBM defense systems would basically make it so the nukes don't exist, thus reverting the situation back to the past. This means that the regular wars are also back. No amount of political alliances and kind words will make peace last long in this situation!

Yeah and Italy was split into several city states, as was the HRE. Nearly all of it was due to monarchs wanting someone land or something or other.

Things are WAY different than it was in the 19th, 18th, 17th, nth centuries, the United Nations didn't exist, France and England (these guys fought a LOT) have buried the hatchet so to speak.

Spain and Portugal lost their empires long ago, they have no reason to war with anybody.

Germany went through two world wars, got chewed up and spat back out, twice, I think they've probably worked out their warmongering.

Austria isn't the empire they once were.

Italy is one state now.

The Balkans, well, uh, theres a reason why it's called a powderkeg.....

Sure there are the ghosts of small territorial disputes, but nobody needs to go to war over them.

Also, one main reason why WWI embroiled all of Europe is because of a clusterfuck of alliances and an alliance cascade.

[scriver]

Iirc, Sweden and Denmark is the two states with the highest numbers of wars waged against each other in Europe (possibly the world?) recorded history. And look at us now. Only casualties is a few drunken brawls with annoying drunk tourists every summer or so.

[mainiac]

I always thought that tangled web of alliances explanation is bullshit.  France+Britain and Germany were willing to kill each other over who would be the top dog in the west.  Austria+Russia and the Ottomans were willing to kill each other over who would be the top dog in the east.  The alliances just determined when the shooting would start.

"Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force."
-that TV show

[Antsan]

Germany went through two world wars, got chewed up and spat back out, twice, I think they've probably worked out their warmongering.

I thought that, too, until recently. Maybe it's better than in the USA and Russia (the letter added in light of recent events), but it has gotten much worse throughout my lifetime. We also have got to remember how many wars Germany has been involved in.

@Sergarr:
I think the point is that, instead of using nuclear weapons to generate the fear that some people think is necessary to keep people from going to war, the fear of war itself could be enough, if public education was better. At least that's my take on it.
I also read some memoirs. That's why I am absolutely terrified of war.

[Helgoland]

Germany went through two world wars, got chewed up and spat back out, twice, I think they've probably worked out their warmongering.

I thought that, too, until recently. Maybe it's better than in the USA and Russia (the letter added in light of recent events), but it has gotten much worse throughout my lifetime. We also have got to remember how many wars Germany has been involved in.

What changed your mind? All I see in our media is the same-old self-righteous vulgar pacifism that allows us to feel morally superior to everyone else ("We learned our lesson, you didn't!") while not lifting a finger to do anything.
And what wars was the BRD involved in? Except for the Balkans and Afghanistan, that is.