Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A great example of how the controversy is still raging, take a look at the operations around the Rzhev salient in November and December 1942. This was Operation MARS, which conventional Soviet history describes as a diversion to fix German reserves in place in and around Army Group Center in order to prevent them being sent south to counter the Soviet offensive operations to envelop the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad (Operation URANUS). Newly released / translated sources indicate that MARS was much, much more ambitious and was aimed, perhaps, at the total collapse of Army Group Center. More troops were allocated for MARS, Zhukov himself was in command of MARS, and it was an utter defeat militarily for the Soviets. Many historians speculate that the “official” version of history, that MARS was designed primarily to hold German reserves in place to protect Army Group Center, appears to be “making the results match the plan.”In other areas, casualty lists are a big area where new info is being released, as well as the actions associated with the initial invasion in June 1941. Other areas where info is coming out: the 1942 campaign in Crimea, actions in the north around Finland, and Bagration... to name a few.
I find it interesting, but not suprising, given the release (and translation) of much of the official Soviet archives of “The Great Patriotic War”. A lot of long held beliefs are being challenged, and that is sure to ruffle feathers. Over the last two or three years I've been doing a lot of reading and research related to the war on the Eastern Front — and most of my work has been centered on newly released / translated Soviet sources (more so than German sources, which have been available for decades).My point being, older Russian citizens (I guess I should say "former Soviet citizens") are finding their accepted version of history being challenged - and seeing long held beliefs and childhood stories and heroes being debunked hurts... so resistance is natural. Many may feel that they are fighting "revisionist" history - much the same way many of us feel when revisionists re-interpret events from our history.
Just to chime in here, my thoughts…I think Phid is on target as far as nostalgia, but also consider this... success in capitalism isn't easy, and failure is. In general, you could attain a higher standard of living under communism for less work and effort than what many are experiencing in this current world wide economic downturn. What you don't get under communism is the opportunity to advance and increase your standard of living significantly through hard work and ingenuity. Communism puts the majority of society (but not all of it) on the same socio-economic plain. The communist ideal was to elevate everyone to "middle class" -- the reality was that it raised some but lowered others to something less than middle class. Many were better off, and many were worse off... but now, with economic uncertainty, rising unemployment, unprecedented immigration and increasing cultural diversity (and pressure), I think people are longing for a simpler and more certain society. Just look at what's going on here in the US -- society at large is demanding (and accepting, by and large) that the Federal Government come to the rescue. Look at everyone clamoring over how "unfair" the bailout is and "how can I get my share" -- there are even some serious folks out there clamoring for a nationwide 4% mortgage rate as a way to "fix" the housing situation.... and we don't have a communist experience to look back on with longing. When your current situation is difficult, you don't remember the bad things that happened during a more certain time. That's just human nature.Anyway, my 2 cents...
Hmm… interesting…. I'll have to cogitate on this one…In all of my studies, we have had it all tied by to Mesopotamia... but then come the examples of societies that developed with no contact from better known "civilizations" -- places such as Borneo and New Guinea.Like I said, I'll have to cogitate some....
Ski, what is "genuine" Islam? That is a question without an answer, somewhat in the vein of what is "genuine" Christianity.
Not to hijack, but "Genuine Islam" and "Genuine Christianity", in my humble opinion, are what exists without the corrupting influence of man... But I guess that rates its own thread.----Now, back to the topic... what we practice in the U.S. isn't true (or "genuine" ;D) democracy, and I think we all know that.I guess that, in order to advance this discussion where it might actually further our knowledge and understanding, we should define what we mean by "civilization". While there are numerous dictionaries out there, let's start here:CIVILIZATION: noun1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. 2. those people or nations that have reached such a state. 3. any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization. There are other definitions, but I think these might be most germane to our discussion.If we accept this definition, then civilizations are different based on different cultures, industry, and government.That leads us to one of the root issues in this discussion, "Western Civilization". So, back to the dictionary:WESTERN CIVILIZATION: noun - the modern culture of western Europe and North AmericaI guess we could modify this definition for Middle Eastern Civilization -- The modern culture of the Middle EastFor a different perspective, when Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilization he said he "...thought it would be a good idea"
While all civilization may have the same roots, there is a valid argument that civilizations have developed differently — civilization and cultures are vastly different even today with increasing globalization. Just because they may share the same heritiage at some point, even the same founding influences and philosophies doesn't make what they have become (and how they became what they are) an invalid area of study… does it?
The Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people — and like all contemporary ancient histories, there are certain details added/omitted in the oral tradition. Are the histories of Heroditus or Thucydides 100% accurate? Does that discount them as history?
Seven days of creation, talking serpents, animals lining up double-file to go into a boat, burning bushes, walking canes that turn into snakes and back again, people turning into pillars of salt, whales swallowing reluctant preachers, virgin births....
This is a typical shallow argument. No one ever questions that when Jesus teaches in parables that the stories he tells are made up. That's what a parable is. Why do people think -- make that insist - that parables weren't used in the Old Testament. What, were they invented by Jesus?I want to start by saying I believe in God and consider the Bible to be a sacred text.
I want to start by saying I believe in God and consider the Bible to be a sacred text. I think the Bible is very useful in studying ancient history, but I can't go so far as to say it's 100% accurate in a literal sense. Aside from the parts that are metaphorical, ancient historians had different practices than those followed by modern historians.
In addition to being a fantastic history of the ancient world, the Bible enjoys the distinction of being a sacred text to millions of people. Hebrews, Christians (Catholics and Protestants), and Muslims share the same ancient history housed in the early Old Testament. Whether the entire Bible is the infallible word of God is a matter of faith. In my very humble opinion, I believe (and I think history supports) that the Bible is the true Word of God interpreted, mis-interpreted, and confused by man, who is quite fallible. I think it is a collection of books that house the history of the Hebrews and also encompasses the story God's involvement with man, as well as man's attempt to understand and explain those things that were beyond his comprehesion -- some correctly ascribed to God and some not.
The only way to use the money is to spend it -- that's stimulous. Unfortunately, there are those who would use it to buy a new LCD TV instead of groceries, new tires for the car, carpeting, a new fridge, etc.
I can see why you would think it bad for people to do this - those who can barely feed themselves or who live off the public dole ought to use such money so they can better support themselves. That said, even if people bought new rims, TVs, or entertainment items, they would still be pumping the money back into the economy and providing a catalyst for economic growth.
Looking back, I see that my mind didn't connect to my words. The point that I was trying (badly) to make, was that there are those who would use the stimulus check / check card to put out a down payment on something else that they'd have to make payments on <> -- such as a 52" Plasma, which not only requires a large up front sum, but also needs a $500 TV stand and $120 a month in HD or Sattelite programming... all while paying off credit card debt and car payments while putting nothing into a 401k or Roth IRA.I guess it just twists my nipple to see people who earn a quarter of what I make driving $60,000 cars, carrying around their latest iPhones, eating lunch out every day and talking about their home theater systems and what restaurant they are going to tonight. Meanwhile, I drive a 10 year old pick up truck with 170,000 miles on it (paid for when I picked it up on the lot), I brownbag my lunch every day, have basic cable at home, read rather than watch movies, carry no credit card balance, paid off my student loans ages ago and even though I don't max it out, make payments to my 401k and Roth IRA every month, and instead of eating out a couple of times a week I've put about 120 pounds of venison in the freezer this winter.More so than Wall Street, Banking CEOs, and corrupt politicians, I believe that most of the mess we are in now is due to a culture of personal fiscal irresponsibility. That is, people believing that it is more important to "appear" successful than to "be" successful. People are more concerned about being judged and evaluated as human beings by the cars that they drive, the labels that they wear, and the size of the houses they live in -- rather than, as Dr. King said, "the content of their character." Take, for example, a recent piece in the Washington Post - retailers moaning over how spending this Valentines day is expected to be down from the average of $123 spent per person last year. That on the heals of the same type of article back in October stating that the average person spends over $300 on Halloween! Sure, the bankers, brokers, and real estate agents have their fair share of the blame, but in my mind it is the overall culture of frivolous consumption that kept us barrelling down this road without our headlights or seatbelts on. <>We now return you to this thread, already in progress.... ;D
1910 is generally seen as the birth of the Boys Scouts of America. Not to say that there weren't troops formed prior to then, but that's the recognized founding of the national organization. The National Jamboree scheduled for late July 2010 at Fort AP Hill promises to be quite an event. My local troop (Troop 1910, by the way) has big plans to attend. Of course, anything that BSA National touches, it'll be expensive. Anyone else going to be there?
I read about a suggestion today, which obviously didn't make the current package. Instead of sending a stimulous check to everyone – which may go to pay down debt, or just as likely, in the savings account, that the government should send out, say, a $2000 check card / debit card. The only way to use the money is to spend it — that's stimulous. Unfortunately, there are those who would use it to buy a new LCD TV instead of groceries, new tires for the car, carpeting, a new fridge, etc.
I was reading a book review tonight that made me think of this discussion thread, and I wanted to add a bit. The review in question was written by Robert Bateman, professor of military history at Georgetown University and author of the book No Gun Ri; a Military History of the Korean War Incident. The review was of Robert Mrazek's A Dawn Like Thunder; The True Story of Torpedo Squadron Eight. Mrazek was a Navy veteran whose father served under Admiral Mistcher, was a journalist who became a Congressman from NY for 10 years and the author of three military novels. A Dawn Like Thunder is his first work of miltary non-fiction.Anyway, in praising Mrazek's current book, Bateman states: "Academically trained historians too often reduce gripping events to soul-parching compilations of cautious statementsthat only the most generous might grace wit hteh term 'narrative.' On the flip side, journalists attempting to write works of history sometimes jettison their skepticism; the result is often a great story but not very good history." Equally appropo to this discussion, he says that Mrazek tells "... the story of Torpedo Eight and the war in the Pacific as it was, not as some might wish it had been."Now, while the review makes me want to read the book - although it will have to take second place to George Gay's Sole Survivor for the history of Torpedo Eight's ill fated attack at Midway. But my point in posting this is more than just the discussion of the tendency of academic historians to write in a "soul-parching" style (I love that term -- soul-parching). I also wanted to seek comment on journalists who write history. Some, like war correspondants such as Ernie Pyle and Richard Tregaskis are recording history, but are almost excused for "jettison[ing] their skepticism. Others, such as Thomas Ricks continue to wave their partisan political flags and Mark Bowden bring humanity of the participants to the forefront (I'm not sure that Blackhawk Down qualifies as history, but maybe I'm too close to it to be objective). Then there is Rick Atkinson's two-thirds complete trilogy, which I think bridges that gap between academic history and journalism -- highly readable and well researched. I think as students of history (I really can't refer to myself as a historian) we should seek to reach that balance. To tell the story in a highly readable manner, but with impeccable research. Obviously, much easier said than done.Thoughts?
