Discussion:
Other cases of countries being partitioned?
(too old to reply)
WolfBear
2017-10-03 23:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan) were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.

Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an illegitimate country and government.
David Tenner
2017-10-04 01:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
The most obvious possibility is Austria, but apparently Stalin never
seriously considered it; there were free elections in all zones and an
elected all-Austrian government from a very early stage. A neutral Austria
was more to the USSR's advantage than a partitioned Austria where West
Austria could serve as a NATO bridge connecting West Germany with Italy.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-04 01:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
The most obvious possibility is Austria, but apparently Stalin never
seriously considered it; there were free elections in all zones and an
elected all-Austrian government from a very early stage. A neutral Austria
was more to the USSR's advantage than a partitioned Austria where West
Austria could serve as a NATO bridge connecting West Germany with Italy.
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia, not just a show of Stalin's goodwill and that its status as a victim of Nazism had been defined by Moscow Declaration of 1943.

"The Austrian government, consisting of Social Democrats, Conservatives, and Communists (until 1947), and residing in Vienna, which was surrounded by the Soviet zone, was recognised by the Western Allies in October 1945 after some doubts that Renner could be Stalin's puppet. Thus, the creation of a separate Western Austrian government and the division of the country was avoidable. Austria, in general, was treated as though it had been originally invaded by Germany and liberated by the Allies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria#Interwar_period_and_World_War_II

Most definitely, the "NATO bridge" could not be a consideration until 1949. :-)
David Tenner
2017-10-04 03:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia, not just
a show of Stalin's goodwill and that its status as a victim of Nazism
had been defined by Moscow Declaration of 1943.
A joke attributed to Billy Wilder among others: The Austrians managed to
convince themselves and the world that Beethoven was an Austrian and Hitler
was a German...
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-04 19:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia, not just
a show of Stalin's goodwill and that its status as a victim of Nazism
had been defined by Moscow Declaration of 1943.
A joke attributed to Billy Wilder among others: The Austrians managed to
convince themselves and the world that Beethoven was an Austrian and Hitler
was a German...
Well said :-)

However, it seems that their future had been more or less determined well before they could start convincing anybody about anything.
Rob
2017-10-06 21:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia
huh?

What do you mean by this?
Alex Milman
2017-10-06 21:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia
huh?
What do you mean by this?
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
Rob
2017-10-07 00:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
ah, was that more less discussed at Yalta or a prior conference.
Alex Milman
2017-10-07 01:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
ah, was that more less discussed at Yalta or a prior conference.
Future of Austria was defined in 1943 by Moscow Declaration:

"The governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America are agreed that Austria, the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression, shall be liberated from German domination.
"They regard the annexation imposed upon Austria by Germany on March 15, 1938, as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any changes effected in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see re-established a free and independent Austria and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves, as well as those neighbouring states which will be faced with similar problems, to find that political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.
"Austria is reminded, however that she has a responsibility, which she cannot evade, for participation in the war on the side of Hitlerite Germany, and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Declarations#Declaration_on_Austria
Rob
2017-10-17 02:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
ah, was that more less discussed at Yalta or a prior conference.
"The governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America are agreed that Austria, the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression, shall be liberated from German domination.
"They regard the annexation imposed upon Austria by Germany on March 15, 1938, as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any changes effected in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see re-established a free and independent Austria and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves, as well as those neighbouring states which will be faced with similar problems, to find that political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.
"Austria is reminded, however that she has a responsibility, which she cannot evade, for participation in the war on the side of Hitlerite Germany, and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Declarations#Declaration_on_Austria
But that declaration did not say anything about spheres of influence over Czechoslovakia.
Alex Milman
2017-10-17 18:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay in Austria only on a temporary basis.
ah, was that more less discussed at Yalta or a prior conference.
"The governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America are agreed that Austria, the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression, shall be liberated from German domination.
"They regard the annexation imposed upon Austria by Germany on March 15, 1938, as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any changes effected in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see re-established a free and independent Austria and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves, as well as those neighbouring states which will be faced with similar problems, to find that political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.
"Austria is reminded, however that she has a responsibility, which she cannot evade, for participation in the war on the side of Hitlerite Germany, and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Declarations#Declaration_on_Austria
But that declaration did not say anything about spheres of influence over Czechoslovakia.
Yes, it did not because it was about Austria. Future of Czechoslovakia had been discussed on other occasions and it ended up within the Soviet sphere of influence (with the requirement of the fair elections but no requirement of the Red Army NOT being present during these elections).
The Horny Goat
2017-10-18 11:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:15:27 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, it did not because it was about Austria. Future of Czechoslovakia had been discussed on other occasions and it ended up within the Soviet sphere of influence (with the requirement of the fair elections but no requirement of the Red Army NOT being present during these elections).
I think all of us know well that what FDR thought a "friendly regime"
was at Yalta and elsewhere was quite different from what Stalin meant.

Czechoslovakia was a prime example of this.
Alex Milman
2017-10-18 15:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:15:27 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Yes, it did not because it was about Austria. Future of Czechoslovakia had been discussed on other occasions and it ended up within the Soviet sphere of influence (with the requirement of the fair elections but no requirement of the Red Army NOT being present during these elections).
I think all of us know well that what FDR thought a "friendly regime"
was at Yalta and elsewhere was quite different from what Stalin meant.
Czechoslovakia was a prime example of this.
It was reasonably clearly decided that Czechoslovakia (much more valuable prize economically than Austria at that time) would fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. The rest was a combination of FDR's general absence of interest in the European affairs and his expectation of the Soviet help against Japan. I'm not sure if he was REALLY as idiotic about Stalin as he was trying to demonstrate but if, as it seems, his idea was to get the American troops out of Europe ASAP and to leave European problems to the Europeans then why would he care about Czechoslovakia beyond the face-saving gibberish like the free elections?
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-20 01:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
I'm not sure if he was REALLY as idiotic about
Stalin as he was trying to demonstrate...
_I_ am sure. Roosevelt's most influential advisor
was Harry Hopkins. He wrote in his journal that
any hope for peace and democracy in Russia was
dependent on Stalin's survival.

Westerners did not have any real understanding
of Soviet conditions. Churchill for instance
believed that Stalin was only first among equals,
and had to answer to a "Council of Commissars".

One should recall the incredulity of Western
leaders toward reports of the Holocaust. They
had already judged Nazi Germany as (in Churchill's
words) "a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the
dark lamentable catalogue of human crime." And yet
they still couldn't grasp the actual scale and
quality of Nazi evil.

They had far less information about the USSR, which
put on a much better "public image". And so they
(most liberals, anyway) accepted that image at nearly
face value - especially once the war was in full
swing with the Russians as "gallant allies".
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-20 03:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
I'm not sure if he was REALLY as idiotic about
Stalin as he was trying to demonstrate...
_I_ am sure.
I was just trying not to be too blunt. After reading his statement that he was agreeing to Stalin's demands in expectation that in response Stalin will behave as a gentleman I found myself in the same position as a medical commission after seeing the Good Soldier Schweik: 'his idiocy became quite obvious when he cried "Long live the Emperor Franz Joseph I!"' :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Roosevelt's most influential advisor
was Harry Hopkins. He wrote in his journal that
any hope for peace and democracy in Russia was
dependent on Stalin's survival.
I never could understand people like him: he did not even have an excuse of being ignorant.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Westerners did not have any real understanding
of Soviet conditions. Churchill for instance
believed that Stalin was only first among equals,
and had to answer to a "Council of Commissars".
But at least he did not have illusions about the Soviet "democracy".
Post by Rich Rostrom
One should recall the incredulity of Western
leaders toward reports of the Holocaust. They
had already judged Nazi Germany as (in Churchill's
words) "a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the
dark lamentable catalogue of human crime." And yet
they still couldn't grasp the actual scale and
quality of Nazi evil.
They had far less information about the USSR, which
put on a much better "public image".
Well, a lot of things could be figured out based upon what they DID know, provided they wanted to figure them out. Look, even a non-political figure like general Bradley made a quick conclusion out of Konev's unwillingness to give him a map of the Red Army positions in exchange to one Bradley gave him. He commented that probably for doing that Konev would probably need permission from Moscow. He did not went further (why would he?) but wasn't this telling something fundamental about the regime?
Post by Rich Rostrom
And so they
(most liberals, anyway)
Any surprise there? :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
accepted that image at nearly
face value - especially once the war was in full
swing with the Russians as "gallant allies".
Well, as long as "gallant" stays for "brave", it is not a serious mistake. But when the meaning was stretched to "gentlemanly, honorable", it was a totally different issue.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-21 01:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
They had far less information about the USSR, which
put on a much better "public image".
Well, a lot of things could be figured out based
upon what they DID know, provided they wanted to
figure them out. Look, even a non-political figure
like general Bradley made a quick conclusion out of
Konev's unwillingness to give him a map of the Red
Army positions in exchange to one Bradley gave him.
He commented that probably for doing that Konev
would probably need permission from Moscow. He did
not went further (why would he?) but wasn't this
telling something fundamental about the regime?
It indicated _something_, but not anything definite
or clear.

Indeed, IMO if anyone in the West had mode the effort
to assemble everything that was known about the USSR,
and use it to construct a picture, with _no_
preconceptions or assumptions (of normality, even of
"normal" dictatorial ways), they could have figured
it out.

But no one did so. The US did not even have a national
intelligence service. Britain did - but it was riddled
with Communist traitors. Probably France's was too.
German intelligence was inept and corrupt, divided
between Nazis and the anti-Nazis in the Abwehr. Japan
failed completely to understand the US, which is an
open society.

Such an effort was not a priority for any country,
at that time.

Yes, there were lots of disturbing signals, but no one
saw more than a few of them, and they could all be
"explained".

Have you heard of the "Gell-Mann Effect"? (Named for
Nobel laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who first
codified it.) Gell-Mann noted that people very often
complain that a press report is garbled or misstated
when it is something they know about personally. Yet
these same people take press reports on other subjects
at face value. They don't make the logical step from
the few press errors they see to the general proposition
that the press are _frequently_, even _usually_ wrong.
They are blinded by their unconscious assumption that
the press are honest and competent.

In the same way, most observers of the USSR (before and
during WW II) saw whatever disturbing evidence came their
way in isolation. It was either dismissed as insignificant,
or taken as evidence of minor flaws.

It was not until after the war that the USSR finally
committed major wrong acts in view of too many people
outside the country to be overlooked.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-21 15:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
They had far less information about the USSR, which
put on a much better "public image".
Well, a lot of things could be figured out based
upon what they DID know, provided they wanted to
figure them out. Look, even a non-political figure
like general Bradley made a quick conclusion out of
Konev's unwillingness to give him a map of the Red
Army positions in exchange to one Bradley gave him.
He commented that probably for doing that Konev
would probably need permission from Moscow. He did
not went further (why would he?) but wasn't this
telling something fundamental about the regime?
It indicated _something_, but not anything definite
or clear.
Indeed, IMO if anyone in the West had mode the effort
to assemble everything that was known about the USSR,
and use it to construct a picture, with _no_
preconceptions or assumptions (of normality, even of
"normal" dictatorial ways), they could have figured
it out.
But was there an interest in getting that type of a knowledge? It would just make life more "complex".
Post by Rich Rostrom
But no one did so. The US did not even have a national
intelligence service. Britain did - but it was riddled
with Communist traitors. Probably France's was too.
German intelligence was inept and corrupt, divided
between Nazis and the anti-Nazis in the Abwehr. Japan
failed completely to understand the US, which is an
open society.
Such an effort was not a priority for any country,
at that time.
Yes, there were lots of disturbing signals, but no one
saw more than a few of them, and they could all be
"explained".
Of course. It is just "their way" of doing things.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Have you heard of the "Gell-Mann Effect"? (Named for
Nobel laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who first
codified it.) Gell-Mann noted that people very often
complain that a press report is garbled or misstated
when it is something they know about personally. Yet
these same people take press reports on other subjects
at face value. They don't make the logical step from
the few press errors they see to the general proposition
that the press are _frequently_, even _usually_ wrong.
At the risk of sounding immodest, I usually do. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
They are blinded by their unconscious assumption that
the press are honest and competent.
I suspect that as of now this notion is not shared by a majority (in the US).
Post by Rich Rostrom
In the same way, most observers of the USSR (before and
during WW II) saw whatever disturbing evidence came their
way in isolation. It was either dismissed as insignificant,
or taken as evidence of minor flaws.
AFAIK, extensive usage of a forced labor in the SU was not a secret well before the war and, IIRC, there was even some kind of a scandal over the resulting low prices of the Soviet timber exports undermining American suppliers (something of the kind). But the only "meaningful" component was unfair trade practice, not the forced labor.

At least some of the "observers" (including those who had been in the SU in whatever capacity) had been taking a rather humorous view of the Soviet bureaucracy, secretiveness, etc.: "Bears in the Caviar" by Charles Thayer (as I understand, written after WWII), movies like "Ninochka" or "Silk Stockings" and even "One, two, three" by Billy Wilder (1961). If it is funny, it is not THAT dangerous.
Post by Rich Rostrom
It was not until after the war that the USSR finally
committed major wrong acts in view of too many people
outside the country to be overlooked.
Or perhaps it was just because the reasons for overlooking the known bad things were not there anymore: it would be a bad PR to be allied with a bloody dictator even against another bloody dictator but when the war was over it would be a completely different story.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-23 00:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
At least some of the "observers" (including those
who had been in the SU in whatever capacity) had
been taking a rather humorous view of the Soviet
bureaucracy, secretiveness, etc.
Bureaucratization and secretiveness are quirks, flaws,
not horrifying. Stalin was a dictator? So were Peron,
Franco, Vargas, Metaxas, Pilsudski, and others. But in
those countries, the secret police did not arrest the
first person to stop applauding the dictator's name.
Post by Alex Milman
"Bears in the Caviar" by Charles Thayer (as I
understand, written after WWII)...
Thayer was attacked as a Communist sympathizer by
McCarthy and run out of the State Department. I would
guess that he fell into the category of "useful idiots";
regarding himself as a critic of Communism, he never
understood what the Soviet regime really was, and in
his writing "normalized" it.
Post by Alex Milman
... movies like "Ninotchka" or "Silk Stockings" and
even "One, two, three" by Billy Wilder (1961). If it
is funny, it is not THAT dangerous.
There were comic attacks on Nazi Germany, even during
the war - notably _The Great Dictator_.

One pre-war attack on the USSR was _Comrade X_, with
Clark Gable and Hedy Lamarr. It is implied, but not
quite explicitly stated that an ambitious commissar
who has moved from dissident leader to secret police
chief, proves his loyalty to the state by having all
his old followers executed. The victims are nameless
and faceless; the killings are off-stage. So the film
remains a comedy.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
It was not until after the war that the USSR finally
committed major wrong acts in view of too many people
outside the country to be overlooked.
Or perhaps it was just because the reasons for
overlooking the known bad things were not there
anymore...
Before the war, Soviet crimes were internal and
thus not clearly viewed even when partly known.

During the war, the Soviet invasions of Poland and
Finland were discrediting, but they seemed
insignificant compared to what Germany was up to; and
then the USSR was an Ally. By the end of the war both
issues were "old news". (The same with the Baltic
states.)

After the war, many Soviet actions were outside its
borders, and much more visible. Also, the experience
with Germany greatly increased the attention paid by
Westerners to such actions.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-23 14:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 SU in whatever capacity) had
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
been taking a rather humorous view of the Soviet
bureaucracy, secretiveness, etc.
Bureaucratization and secretiveness are quirks, flaws,
not horrifying.
Yes, and they allow an observer to have that nice feeling of a superiority. Even if the ...er... "ugly things" were not really hidden, they could be easily overlooked like in Lion Feuchtwanger's "Moscow 1937": are numerous covered trucks with a logo "bread" surely indicate that Moscow is well-supplied, Bernard Shaw was somewhat excited by seeing numerous armed guards on the way to Stalin's office and even more excited having "equal to equal" style of conversation, etc.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Stalin was a dictator? So were Peron,
Franco, Vargas, Metaxas, Pilsudski, and others.
Yes, an the liberals quite often appreciate the dictators (as long as they are not on a receiving side) because dictatorship fits well into the nanny state model where government knows better. IIRC, initially there was no problem with Mussolini either (the trains in Italy are now on schedule). Franco, IIRC, was a bad guy because of the civil war and all these romantic volunteers fighting on the republican side (which was not, IIRC, all that pink and fluffy either).
Post by Rich Rostrom
But in
those countries, the secret police did not arrest the
first person to stop applauding the dictator's name.
Not at all, AFAIK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
"Bears in the Caviar" by Charles Thayer (as I
understand, written after WWII)...
Thayer was attacked as a Communist sympathizer by
McCarthy and run out of the State Department.
If half of what he wrote about his activities in the State Department is true he should be removed from it without any ideological considerations being involved so probably the same goes for many of his colleagues: he (and them) were seemingly having a lot of a good time at taxpayer's expense.

But his book is very funny and I like his description of general Patton.
Post by Rich Rostrom
I would
guess that he fell into the category of "useful idiots";
regarding himself as a critic of Communism,
I'm not sure if he really considered himself as such. In the book he was just moving from one funny episode to another, like arranging for the fancy reception in ambassador's residence in Moscow (on a "receiving side" it was immortalized as a ball given by Satan in Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita") or an attempt to introduce polo games in the Red Army.
Post by Rich Rostrom
he never
understood what the Soviet regime really was, and in
his writing "normalized" it.
IMO, he simply did not care as long as he could have some fun. His description of Afghanistan is equally funny and so is description of him acting as a translator during/after WWII.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
... movies like "Ninotchka" or "Silk Stockings" and
even "One, two, three" by Billy Wilder (1961). If it
is funny, it is not THAT dangerous.
There were comic attacks on Nazi Germany, even during
the war - notably _The Great Dictator_.
Or "To be or not to be"
Post by Rich Rostrom
One pre-war attack on the USSR was _Comrade X_, with
Clark Gable and Hedy Lamarr.
I missed that one.
Post by Rich Rostrom
It is implied, but not
quite explicitly stated that an ambitious commissar
who has moved from dissident leader to secret police
chief, proves his loyalty to the state by having all
his old followers executed. The victims are nameless
and faceless; the killings are off-stage. So the film
remains a comedy.
Well, executing the Bolsheviks is not such a bad thing so... :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
It was not until after the war that the USSR finally
committed major wrong acts in view of too many people
outside the country to be overlooked.
Or perhaps it was just because the reasons for
overlooking the known bad things were not there
anymore...
Before the war, Soviet crimes were internal and
thus not clearly viewed even when partly known.
During the war, the Soviet invasions of Poland and
Finland were discrediting, but they seemed
insignificant compared to what Germany was up to; and
then the USSR was an Ally. By the end of the war both
issues were "old news". (The same with the Baltic
states.)
Indeed.
Post by Rich Rostrom
After the war, many Soviet actions were outside its
borders, and much more visible.
Well, do you know that between the wars the Soviets managed to kidnap and kill quite a few prominent leaders of the White movement (mostly from France)? This was definitely outside their borders but nobody paid too much attention.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, the experience
with Germany greatly increased the attention paid by
Westerners to such actions.
Well, yes. However, even with all this experience available McCarthy was considered a dangerous lunatic and there were numerous Soviet sympathizers, especially among so-called "intellectuals".
The Horny Goat
2017-10-23 19:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:14:44 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 SU in whatever capacity) had
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were comic attacks on Nazi Germany, even during
the war - notably _The Great Dictator_.
Well The Great Dictator was started in 1935 and not completed until
April 1940. Chaplin said it was the only one of his movies he
regretted making as Hitler was a LOT less funny in early 1940 (e.g.
after the fall of Warsaw) than he was in 1935.

In short - the film was largely completed and in post-production by
the time of the war with Poland so I think it's fair to give 'films
produced during the war' an asterisk on this one.
Post by Alex Milman
Well, yes. However, even with all this experience available McCarthy was considered a dangerous lunatic and there were numerous Soviet sympathizers, especially among so-called "intellectuals".
My personal view is that McCarthy would have been FAR less
intimidating if pretty much anybody besides Hoover was running the FBI

And of course the genuine Soviet threat went well beyond sympathizers
both in Britain and the USA.
Alex Milman
2017-10-23 23:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:14:44 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 SU in whatever capacity) had
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were comic attacks on Nazi Germany, even during
the war - notably _The Great Dictator_.
Well The Great Dictator was started in 1935 and not completed until
April 1940. Chaplin said it was the only one of his movies he
regretted making as Hitler was a LOT less funny in early 1940 (e.g.
after the fall of Warsaw) than he was in 1935.
Actually, he was not "funny" at all in 1935 and obviously, for anybody who bothered to pay attention, after Kristallnacht (1938).


[]
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Well, yes. However, even with all this experience available McCarthy was considered a dangerous lunatic and there were numerous Soviet sympathizers, especially among so-called "intellectuals".
My personal view is that McCarthy would have been FAR less
intimidating if pretty much anybody besides Hoover was running the FBI
And of course the genuine Soviet threat went well beyond sympathizers
both in Britain and the USA.
It did but it needed the sympathizers to be effective.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-24 02:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 SU in whatever capacity) had
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were comic attacks on Nazi Germany, even during
the war - notably _The Great Dictator_.
Well The Great Dictator was started in 1935 and not completed until
April 1940. Chaplin said it was the only one of his movies he
regretted making as Hitler was a LOT less funny in early 1940 (e.g.
after the fall of Warsaw) than he was in 1935.
Actually, he was not "funny" at all in 1935 and obviously, for anybody who bothered to pay attention, after Kristallnacht (1938).
I know that and you know that but at that point he had yet not taken
the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudentenland, Bohemia, Slovakia, Memel all
before the declaration of war on Poland.

I would have to look up 1935 to verify whether work on the Great
Dictator was done before or after the Nuremberg laws which I'm pretty
sure came in in.1935. At that point he had passed the Enabling Act
that got him his artificial majority in the Reichstag and sent a few
Communists and Socialists to Dachau which wasn't even "on the radar"
of the average German. Niemoller's famous quote - "First they came for
the Communists..." wasn't until after the war but very well sums up
the early Nazi period.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Well, yes. However, even with all this experience available McCarthy was considered a dangerous lunatic and there were numerous Soviet sympathizers, especially among so-called "intellectuals".
Of course at that point the John Birch Society was considered credible
in its political opinions. Nixon routinely invoked them at that time
(though he disavowed them later)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
My personal view is that McCarthy would have been FAR less
intimidating if pretty much anybody besides Hoover was running the FBI
And of course the genuine Soviet threat went well beyond sympathizers
both in Britain and the USA.
It did but it needed the sympathizers to be effective.
I would argue the Rosenbergs and other real spies performed that role.
Real reds not just pinks in other words.

I smile when I think about what MacCarthy would have said about "red
states" and "blue states" and that he would have been firmly in the
'red' camp despite how horrified he'd be about association with
anything involving the color red.
Alex Milman
2017-10-24 18:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 SU in whatever capacity) had
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were comic attacks on Nazi Germany, even during
the war - notably _The Great Dictator_.
Well The Great Dictator was started in 1935 and not completed until
April 1940. Chaplin said it was the only one of his movies he
regretted making as Hitler was a LOT less funny in early 1940 (e.g.
after the fall of Warsaw) than he was in 1935.
Actually, he was not "funny" at all in 1935 and obviously, for anybody who bothered to pay attention, after Kristallnacht (1938).
I know that and you know that but at that point he had yet not taken
the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudentenland, Bohemia, Slovakia, Memel all
before the declaration of war on Poland.
I would have to look up 1935 to verify whether work on the Great
Dictator was done before or after the Nuremberg laws which I'm pretty
sure came in in.1935. At that point he had passed the Enabling Act
that got him his artificial majority in the Reichstag and sent a few
Communists and Socialists to Dachau which wasn't even "on the radar"
of the average German. Niemoller's famous quote - "First they came for
the Communists..." wasn't until after the war but very well sums up
the early Nazi period.
It is not that. Nazi program never was a secret (ditto for the Soviets) and their propaganda was in a full swing even before they came to power.

It was just a mental unwillingness of the "West" to start paying attention until its collective nose had been pushed into a pile of manure which was not possible to ignore anymore. AFAIK, there was plenty of noise prior to the Olympic games in Berlin (1936) so it is not like the whole thing was a complete grey area.

As far as The Great Dictator was involved the issue (IMO) was not a precise date of its release but a plain fact that most of the movie is just a set of the old cliché used in the earlier "Little Tramp" comedies where the bad guys are just silly and not really dangerous. How can you consider a pathetic nincompoop being beaten by a girl as a serious threat to anybody? Adenoid Hynkel is just a silly fool who has only moustache similar to Hitler. In "To be or not to be" the Nazi are morons but SCARY morons (well, you can argue that in 1942 there was much more of a general knowledge).
Post by The Horny Goat
Of course at that point the John Birch Society was considered credible
in its political opinions. Nixon routinely invoked them at that time
(though he disavowed them later)
Well, they may end up being overly zealous but the ideas of anti-communism and limited government are not the bad ones.

I do not agree that Ike was "the tool of the Communists" but the part "a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory" seems to be not too far off (at least his "Crusade in Europe" somewhat supports such an impression). Personally, I don't see an absence of the principles as something definitely bad for a politician, especially one who wants things to be done. :-)
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
My personal view is that McCarthy would have been FAR less
intimidating if pretty much anybody besides Hoover was running the FBI
And of course the genuine Soviet threat went well beyond sympathizers
both in Britain and the USA.
It did but it needed the sympathizers to be effective.
I would argue the Rosenbergs and other real spies performed that role.
Real reds not just pinks in other words.
For a spy to be successful a "supporting base" (people having access to the valuable information or to the people making important decisions) is necessary. And such a base can consist of the people bought or blackmailed into a cooperation and/or the people who are willingly cooperating based upon their convictions. The last category is cheaper and easier to handle. The obvious downside is that potentially these people could be a bunch of idiots (not necessarily in their personal lives) and handling an idiot involves problems of its own.

I agree that most of the "pinks" had been absolutely useless as far as spying itself was involved but they had been helpful in creating an environment which was generally sympathetic to the enemy (which the SU was at that time).

It is somewhat similar to the situation with the pre-revolutionary Russian intelligencia: individual may not approve of the terrorism but he would never denounce a known terrorist to the authorities or even cooperate with the authorities on any issue (unless HE was robbed :-)).
Post by The Horny Goat
I smile when I think about what MacCarthy would have said about "red
states" and "blue states" and that he would have been firmly in the
'red' camp despite how horrified he'd be about association with
anything involving the color red.
Well, this is really ironic.

Actually, the Soviets had somewhat similar "color problem" with the Nazi: both had red flags (came handy during M-R Pact but not before or after) so for a while the Nazi had been "assigned" a brown color.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-24 22:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:41:39 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
On Sunday, October 22, 2017 SU in whatever capacity) had
Post by Rich Rostrom
There were comic attacks on Nazi Germany, even during
the war - notably _The Great Dictator_.
Well The Great Dictator was started in 1935 and not completed until
April 1940. Chaplin said it was the only one of his movies he
regretted making as Hitler was a LOT less funny in early 1940 (e.g.
after the fall of Warsaw) than he was in 1935.
Actually, he was not "funny" at all in 1935 and obviously, for anybody who bothered to pay attention, after Kristallnacht (1938).
I know that and you know that but at that point he had yet not taken
the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudentenland, Bohemia, Slovakia, Memel all
before the declaration of war on Poland.
I would have to look up 1935 to verify whether work on the Great
Dictator was done before or after the Nuremberg laws which I'm pretty
sure came in in.1935. At that point he had passed the Enabling Act
that got him his artificial majority in the Reichstag and sent a few
Communists and Socialists to Dachau which wasn't even "on the radar"
of the average German. Niemoller's famous quote - "First they came for
the Communists..." wasn't until after the war but very well sums up
the early Nazi period.
For what it's worth there were several Nazi acts sometimes cited as
"Nuremberg" laws. The earliest was in 1933, the latest in Sept/Oct
1935. I don't really think any of the regulars here need a summary on
what they were about. Ditto Kristalnacht which was 1938.
Post by Alex Milman
It is not that. Nazi program never was a secret (ditto for the Soviets) and their propaganda was in a full swing even before they came to power.
It was no secret that Nazis hated Jews. What was not well known until
after the war was the degree of the industrialization of genocide. FDR
as early as 1943 knew something was going on in the Oswiecim
(Auschwitz) area - he did not understand that poison gas and
crematoria were part of it. I'm sure he believed Jews were impirsoned
and brutally forced to work. That was considered 'normal behaviour'
for tyrannical regimes at the time - mass murder (as opposed to
working people to death) was not expected.
Post by Alex Milman
It was just a mental unwillingness of the "West" to start paying attention until its collective nose had been pushed into a pile of manure which was not possible to ignore anymore. AFAIK, there was plenty of noise prior to the Olympic games in Berlin (1936) so it is not like the whole thing was a complete grey area.
Again - 1936 (August to be specific) Don't get me wrong - I am NOT
disputing murderous acts were done by the Nazi regime - I am trying to
be specific on when particular outrages took place.
Post by Alex Milman
As far as The Great Dictator was involved the issue (IMO) was not a precise date of its release but a plain fact that most of the movie is just a set of the old cliché used in the earlier "Little Tramp" comedies where the bad guys are just silly and not really dangerous. How can you consider a pathetic nincompoop being beaten by a girl as a serious threat to anybody? Adenoid Hynkel is just a silly fool who has only moustache similar to Hitler. In "To be or not to be" the Nazi are morons but SCARY morons (well, you can argue that in 1942 there was much more of a general knowledge).
One presumes this is why Chaplin disliked the character of Adenoid
Hinkel so much - he wasn't nearly dark enough for Chaplin's liking by
1937-38.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Of course at that point the John Birch Society was considered credible
in its political opinions. Nixon routinely invoked them at that time
(though he disavowed them later)
Well, they may end up being overly zealous but the ideas of anti-communism and limited government are not the bad ones.
The Birchers were very much part of the "Who Lost China?" debate which
is not at all surprising given who John Birch was (who from what we
know of the views of the missionary board that sent him out probably
wouldn't have approved of "his" society) e.g. an American missionary
killed in China by Chinese Communists.
Post by Alex Milman
I do not agree that Ike was "the tool of the Communists" but the part "a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory" seems to be not too far off (at least his "Crusade in Europe" somewhat supports such an impression). Personally, I don't see an absence of the principles as something definitely bad for a politician, especially one who wants things to be done. :-)
Which very much matched the United States of the 1950s - and very much
begs the question "If not Ike who?" McArthur eliminated himself based
on how he ended his military career, possibly Marshal though despite
his aministrative skill not really presidential material, Patton was
dea so who besides Ike? (And the United States nearly always elects
former generals as president 10-20 years after a major war - the
exception being after WW1 where Hoover who had spent a lot of time in
Europe doing reconstruction was elected instead. McCain would have
been a good parallel had he been elected.
Post by Alex Milman
For a spy to be successful a "supporting base" (people having access to the valuable information or to the people making important decisions) is necessary. And such a base can consist of the people bought or blackmailed into a cooperation and/or the people who are willingly cooperating based upon their convictions. The last category is cheaper and easier to handle. The obvious downside is that potentially these people could be a bunch of idiots (not necessarily in their personal lives) and handling an idiot involves problems of its own.
I agree that most of the "pinks" had been absolutely useless as far as spying itself was involved but they had been helpful in creating an environment which was generally sympathetic to the enemy (which the SU was at that time).
Absolutely no question the USSR was the main American enemy from the
50s through 80s - no one took China that seriously in that era despite
1952-53 in Korea. Certainly a lot of Americans were surprised by how
well the Vietnamese did against them in 1979.

On the other hand even if Beijing had been able to drive to Hanoi
never mind all the way to Saigon (Ho Chi Minh city) how would it have
served their interests? The "Nine-Dash Line" wasn't really part of
Chinese policy in the late 70s.
Post by Alex Milman
It is somewhat similar to the situation with the pre-revolutionary Russian intelligencia: individual may not approve of the terrorism but he would never denounce a known terrorist to the authorities or even cooperate with the authorities on any issue (unless HE was robbed :-)).
Do you really think a meaningful parallel can be drawn between
60s/70s/80s America and pre1914 Russia?
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
I smile when I think about what MacCarthy would have said about "red
states" and "blue states" and that he would have been firmly in the
'red' camp despite how horrified he'd be about association with
anything involving the color red.
Well, this is really ironic.
Can you imagine a time travelling MacCarthy hearing Dubya proclaiming
he was happy to be representing a "red state" - and how he would
doubly melt down once he saw "George W Bush (GOP)" on a television? (I
have no doubt JM would understand color TV given he had send plenty of
black and white)
Post by Alex Milman
Actually, the Soviets had somewhat similar "color problem" with the Nazi: both had red flags (came handy during M-R Pact but not before or after) so for a while the Nazi had been "assigned" a brown color.
Which is doubly ironic in view of the Red Army uniform. (Admittedly a
completely different shade of brown from the SA uniorm)

As for the color red you are likely to be invoking the Imperial
Japanese flag next! (grin).

Well less than 2 months before the new season of the Man in the High
Castle (ducking and running for cover - loved the book, the show not
so much though there are some good scenes like the Nazi American
congress which was ripped off from the original in Berlin)
Alex Milman
2017-10-25 02:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:41:39 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
[]
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
I do not agree that Ike was "the tool of the Communists" but the part "a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory" seems to be not too far off (at least his "Crusade in Europe" somewhat supports such an impression). Personally, I don't see an absence of the principles as something definitely bad for a politician, especially one who wants things to be done. :-)
Which very much matched the United States of the 1950s - and very much
begs the question "If not Ike who?" McArthur eliminated himself based
on how he ended his military career,
Well, he was considered something of a martyr by many but as far as I can tell he was too pompous, too overbearing and too full of ... well, of himself.

OTOH, Ike was a very good administrator and politician (managing all these prima donnas during WWII was a fundamental task) who also could play "I'm just an ordinary guy" thing convincingly (like in episode with a former farmer soldier described by Bradley). McArthur was from elite with a very little appeal to an ordinary person.
Post by The Horny Goat
possibly Marshal though despite
his aministrative skill not really presidential material,
Yes, does not look like a "public figure"
Post by The Horny Goat
Patton was
dea
Patton, if alive, hardly would be a feasible figure (IMO): slapping incident would not go anyway and neither would analogy between the Nazi and US parties. Plus he was too bellicose and I suspect that very few people had been looking for WWIII at that time.
Post by The Horny Goat
so who besides Ike?
Well, if you start listing the generals, there was Omar Bradley who was after all Patton's superior and (unlike Patton), not a caricature of a "warrior" (which he later helped to create in the movie and in his books).
Post by The Horny Goat
(And the United States nearly always elects
former generals as president 10-20 years after a major war - the
exception being after WW1 where Hoover who had spent a lot of time in
Europe doing reconstruction was elected instead. McCain would have
been a good parallel had he been elected.
To the best of my knowledge McCain never was a general, his military experience can't be considered too impressive in the terms of either scope of command or performance and, while we at it, the guy is a lunatic (I voted for him when alternative looked even worse but now I keep thinking that he would be actually much worse; well, enough of this - there is BoP :-)).
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
For a spy to be successful a "supporting base" (people having access to the valuable information or to the people making important decisions) is necessary. And such a base can consist of the people bought or blackmailed into a cooperation and/or the people who are willingly cooperating based upon their convictions. The last category is cheaper and easier to handle. The obvious downside is that potentially these people could be a bunch of idiots (not necessarily in their personal lives) and handling an idiot involves problems of its own.
I agree that most of the "pinks" had been absolutely useless as far as spying itself was involved but they had been helpful in creating an environment which was generally sympathetic to the enemy (which the SU was at that time).
Absolutely no question the USSR was the main American enemy from the
50s through 80s - no one took China that seriously in that era despite
1952-53 in Korea. Certainly a lot of Americans were surprised by how
well the Vietnamese did against them in 1979.
Actually, with a benefit of a hindsight, it can be probably said that this concept of orientation toward China was a big long-term mistake. By mid 1960's the SU was making the noises (and some moves, mostly of a token value) but it was not really confrontational: the elite wanted to enjoy the benefits of their positions and to a big degree these benefits implied good relations with the West (all types of the goodies). On a practical side, by the efforts of its leaders the SU was in a state of a slow and then accelerating decline which no amount of the Western technology could stop or slow down.

OTOH, China was eager and capable of handling the free gifts it started getting since Kissinger's times and you can see the results now.
Post by The Horny Goat
On the other hand even if Beijing had been able to drive to Hanoi
never mind all the way to Saigon (Ho Chi Minh city) how would it have
served their interests? The "Nine-Dash Line" wasn't really part of
Chinese policy in the late 70s.
On a global scale this did not really matter.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
It is somewhat similar to the situation with the pre-revolutionary Russian intelligencia: individual may not approve of the terrorism but he would never denounce a known terrorist to the authorities or even cooperate with the authorities on any issue (unless HE was robbed :-)).
Do you really think a meaningful parallel can be drawn between
60s/70s/80s America and pre1914 Russia?
As far as the American "intellectuals" are involved, similarities with the Russian pre-revolutionary "intelligencia" are quite clear and why did you stop in the 1980's? What is going on right now belongs to the same category and probably even closer (students are included in "parallel" in both cases). Actually, I can trace parallel as far as early 1870's - not sure if the poem "Mighty Potok" by A. K. Tolstoy is available in English but it tells a lot about the mindset of the Russian "progressives" of that time. Intolerance to the different views and extensive usage of the offensive "nicknames" were already flourishing.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
I smile when I think about what MacCarthy would have said about "red
states" and "blue states" and that he would have been firmly in the
'red' camp despite how horrified he'd be about association with
anything involving the color red.
Well, this is really ironic.
Can you imagine a time travelling MacCarthy hearing Dubya proclaiming
he was happy to be representing a "red state" - and how he would
doubly melt down once he saw "George W Bush (GOP)" on a television? (I
have no doubt JM would understand color TV given he had send plenty of
black and white)
Post by Alex Milman
Actually, the Soviets had somewhat similar "color problem" with the Nazi: both had red flags (came handy during M-R Pact but not before or after) so for a while the Nazi had been "assigned" a brown color.
Which is doubly ironic in view of the Red Army uniform. (Admittedly a
completely different shade of brown from the SA uniorm)
I'm afraid that you are confused: the Red Army uniform was khaki/green, not brown.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-25 03:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
To the best of my knowledge McCain never was a general, his military experience can't be considered too impressive in the terms of either scope of command or performance and, while we at it, the guy is a lunatic (I voted for him when alternative looked even worse but now I keep thinking that he would be actually much worse; well, enough of this - there is BoP :-)).
True - he was mostly a long term POW :)

John Glenn wasn't a general either but had a good record in Korea and
as a test pilot before he was considered to have "the Right Stuff"
Post by Alex Milman
OTOH, China was eager and capable of handling the free gifts it started getting since Kissinger's times and you can see the results now.
Oh boy you got that one right. I still cringe every time I hear the
term "technology transfer" and I know the harm Beijing has done to my
city Vancouver since 1997.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Do you really think a meaningful parallel can be drawn between
60s/70s/80s America and pre1914 Russia?
As far as the American "intellectuals" are involved, similarities with the Russian pre-revolutionary "intelligencia" are quite clear and why did you stop in the 1980's? What is going on right now belongs to the same category and probably even closer (students are included in "parallel" in both cases). Actually, I can trace parallel as far as early 1870's - not sure if the poem "Mighty Potok" by A. K. Tolstoy is available in English but it tells a lot about the mindset of the Russian "progressives" of that time. Intolerance to the different views and extensive usage of the offensive "nicknames" were already flourishing.
On the whole though the pre-war Russian intellectuals had far more
credibility than their so called American counterparts today.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Which is doubly ironic in view of the Red Army uniform. (Admittedly a
completely different shade of brown from the SA uniorm)
I'm afraid that you are confused: the Red Army uniform was khaki/green, not brown.
Which is what I get from looking at Google images to judge colors! I
was thinking more greenish tan but definitely quite different from
khaki as it was understood in UK terms. It's definitely not dark brown
or even 'butternut'.
Alex Milman
2017-10-25 04:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
To the best of my knowledge McCain never was a general, his military experience can't be considered too impressive in the terms of either scope of command or performance and, while we at it, the guy is a lunatic (I voted for him when alternative looked even worse but now I keep thinking that he would be actually much worse; well, enough of this - there is BoP :-)).
True - he was mostly a long term POW :)
John Glenn wasn't a general either but had a good record in Korea and
as a test pilot before he was considered to have "the Right Stuff"
Post by Alex Milman
OTOH, China was eager and capable of handling the free gifts it started getting since Kissinger's times and you can see the results now.
Oh boy you got that one right. I still cringe every time I hear the
term "technology transfer" and I know the harm Beijing has done to my
city Vancouver since 1997.
Let me guess... :-(
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Do you really think a meaningful parallel can be drawn between
60s/70s/80s America and pre1914 Russia?
As far as the American "intellectuals" are involved, similarities with the Russian pre-revolutionary "intelligencia" are quite clear and why did you stop in the 1980's? What is going on right now belongs to the same category and probably even closer (students are included in "parallel" in both cases). Actually, I can trace parallel as far as early 1870's - not sure if the poem "Mighty Potok" by A. K. Tolstoy is available in English but it tells a lot about the mindset of the Russian "progressives" of that time. Intolerance to the different views and extensive usage of the offensive "nicknames" were already flourishing.
On the whole though the pre-war Russian intellectuals had far more
credibility than their so called American counterparts today.
Well, let's start with the terminology. Russian term was/is "intelligencia" (or "inteligent" for a single person) which implies very little beyond education level and working in the area which requires thinking rather than physical activity. It is quite possible to be a "stupid inteligent". Actually, occupation is more important than education: for example, Leonardo qualifies even if he did not have a formal education. OTOH, professional politicians are routinely excluded regardless their education.


OTOH, "intellectual" means "a person possessing a highly developed intellect" which is supposedly resulting from an education (which is a highly questionable assumption) and (correct me if I'm wrong) preferably NOT being engaged in technology-related activities. So, "stupid intellectual" is a mutual contradiction even if a person in question IS a moron.

Another (wiki) definition of "intellectual" is "An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about society and proposes solutions for its normative problems." Which implies that the person in question is not engaged in any productive activity except for telling other people what they should do. While this specific class did exist in Tsarist Russia (especially in the universities), it was MUCH less numerous than in today's US and usually consisted of the highly educated and mentally significant individuals. What we have now is a huge mob big part of it is highly unimpressive regardless of their self-image. Of course, most of them don't have any credibility at all.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Which is doubly ironic in view of the Red Army uniform. (Admittedly a
completely different shade of brown from the SA uniorm)
I'm afraid that you are confused: the Red Army uniform was khaki/green, not brown.
Which is what I get from looking at Google images to judge colors! I
was thinking more greenish tan but definitely quite different from
khaki as it was understood in UK terms. It's definitely not dark brown
or even 'butternut'.
I see what you mean. Yes, it looks like the same name has different meanings. In Russian "khaki" is the brownish-green, not yellow-brown. As far as I can tell, the SA uniforms were heavier into brownish but when the Red Army "gimnasterka" faded on a sun, the difference could be hard to formulate.

Red Army:
http://www.sovietmilitarystuff.com/soviet-uniforms/red-army-uniforms

SA:
https://www.google.com/search?q=sa+stormtrooper+uniform&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=jKwQYN4GAbhCcM%253A%252CxQPW529Vkb_sDM%252C_&usg=__ZNJQ7QiCZRkzHofp0b-Ix8kbbwM%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSjcz784rXAhUh3YMKHTYiAcIQ9QEISTAG#imgrc=zcnd3orzq2swjM:
The Horny Goat
2017-10-25 16:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:14:25 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Do you really think a meaningful parallel can be drawn between
60s/70s/80s America and pre1914 Russia?
As far as the American "intellectuals" are involved, similarities with the Russian pre-revolutionary "intelligencia" are quite clear and why did you stop in the 1980's? What is going on right now belongs to the same category and probably even closer (students are included in "parallel" in both cases). Actually, I can trace parallel as far as early 1870's - not sure if the poem "Mighty Potok" by A. K. Tolstoy is available in English but it tells a lot about the mindset of the Russian "progressives" of that time. Intolerance to the different views and extensive usage of the offensive "nicknames" were already flourishing.
On the whole though the pre-war Russian intellectuals had far more
credibility than their so called American counterparts today.
Well, let's start with the terminology. Russian term was/is "intelligencia" (or "inteligent" for a single person) which implies very little beyond education level and working in the area which requires thinking rather than physical activity. It is quite possible to be a "stupid inteligent". Actually, occupation is more important than education: for example, Leonardo qualifies even if he did not have a formal education. OTOH, professional politicians are routinely excluded regardless their education.
OTOH, "intellectual" means "a person possessing a highly developed intellect" which is supposedly resulting from an education (which is a highly questionable assumption) and (correct me if I'm wrong) preferably NOT being engaged in technology-related activities. So, "stupid intellectual" is a mutual contradiction even if a person in question IS a moron.
Another (wiki) definition of "intellectual" is "An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about society and proposes solutions for its normative problems." Which implies that the person in question is not engaged in any productive activity except for telling other people what they should do. While this specific class did exist in Tsarist Russia (especially in the universities), it was MUCH less numerous than in today's US and usually consisted of the highly educated and mentally significant individuals. What we have now is a huge mob big part of it is highly unimpressive regardless of their self-image. Of course, most of them don't have any credibility at all.
While I appreciate your analysis the whole thing does strike me as
rather "Humpty-Dumpty-ish" (as in Lewis Carroll where there's the line
"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean- neither
more nor less.")

I think nearly all the regulars here are self-taught and quite well
read. For instance my academic training is in IT and business - with
only one university level history survey course. To that you can add
40+ years of voracious reading on history and much else. I don't think
I'm particularly unique in this newsgroup on that.

Presumably I'd qualify by the old Russian definition though back then
it would likely be mathematics instead of the IT stuff. One of the
high points in my undergraduate days was hearing that the 4-color
theorem had been proven after 200+ years. A friendly professor gave me
the reference which I found in the university library and while I
understood the summary got completely boggled in the minutiae!
Alex Milman
2017-10-25 19:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:14:25 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Do you really think a meaningful parallel can be drawn between
60s/70s/80s America and pre1914 Russia?
As far as the American "intellectuals" are involved, similarities with the Russian pre-revolutionary "intelligencia" are quite clear and why did you stop in the 1980's? What is going on right now belongs to the same category and probably even closer (students are included in "parallel" in both cases). Actually, I can trace parallel as far as early 1870's - not sure if the poem "Mighty Potok" by A. K. Tolstoy is available in English but it tells a lot about the mindset of the Russian "progressives" of that time. Intolerance to the different views and extensive usage of the offensive "nicknames" were already flourishing.
On the whole though the pre-war Russian intellectuals had far more
credibility than their so called American counterparts today.
Well, let's start with the terminology. Russian term was/is "intelligencia" (or "inteligent" for a single person) which implies very little beyond education level and working in the area which requires thinking rather than physical activity. It is quite possible to be a "stupid inteligent". Actually, occupation is more important than education: for example, Leonardo qualifies even if he did not have a formal education. OTOH, professional politicians are routinely excluded regardless their education.
OTOH, "intellectual" means "a person possessing a highly developed intellect" which is supposedly resulting from an education (which is a highly questionable assumption) and (correct me if I'm wrong) preferably NOT being engaged in technology-related activities. So, "stupid intellectual" is a mutual contradiction even if a person in question IS a moron.
Another (wiki) definition of "intellectual" is "An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about society and proposes solutions for its normative problems." Which implies that the person in question is not engaged in any productive activity except for telling other people what they should do. While this specific class did exist in Tsarist Russia (especially in the universities), it was MUCH less numerous than in today's US and usually consisted of the highly educated and mentally significant individuals. What we have now is a huge mob big part of it is highly unimpressive regardless of their self-image. Of course, most of them don't have any credibility at all.
While I appreciate your analysis the whole thing does strike me as
rather "Humpty-Dumpty-ish" (as in Lewis Carroll where there's the line
"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean- neither
more nor less.")
Well, historically & culturally these words meant distinctively different things.

Russian pre-revolutionary "intelligencia" mostly consisted of the educated people engaged in some productive activities (doctors, engineers, etc.) with only a small group being engaged in education and even a smaller subset in education related to "non-practical" subjects (like philosophy). To be fair, it was heavily influenced by a prevailing atmosphere of being negative toward the government almost as a matter of principle.

OTOH, the "intellectuals", as far as I can tell, are predominantly NOT engaged in any productive activity and in the area of education they seemingly prevail in the "non-practical" sector (various social "studies", etc.).


Of course, under any normal circumstances, the people with a solid expertise in the practical areas should have more clout than the irresponsible blabbers capable of producing only a hot air. Unfortunately, here and now we have opposite situation.
Post by The Horny Goat
I think nearly all the regulars here are self-taught and quite well
read.
And most probably had been engaged in some meaningful activities during their career.
Post by The Horny Goat
For instance my academic training is in IT and business - with
only one university level history survey course. To that you can add
40+ years of voracious reading on history and much else. I don't think
I'm particularly unique in this newsgroup on that.
Not at all (I have the same background).
Post by The Horny Goat
Presumably I'd qualify by the old Russian definition though back then
it would likely be mathematics instead of the IT stuff.
You'd qualify as "intelligencia" but not as "intellectual" unless you had been professionally engaged in telling people how to improve society. :-)
Post by The Horny Goat
One of the
high points in my undergraduate days was hearing that the 4-color
theorem had been proven after 200+ years. A friendly professor gave me
the reference which I found in the university library and while I
understood the summary got completely boggled in the minutiae!
"A confused intelligent", according to Lenin. :-)
The Horny Goat
2017-10-25 21:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:03:41 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
For instance my academic training is in IT and business - with
only one university level history survey course. To that you can add
40+ years of voracious reading on history and much else. I don't think
I'm particularly unique in this newsgroup on that.
Not at all (I have the same background).
"I don't think I'm particularly unique" means "I don't think I'm the
only one" which is pretty much what you said so we're getting confused
on the double negative :)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Presumably I'd qualify by the old Russian definition though back then
it would likely be mathematics instead of the IT stuff.
You'd qualify as "intelligencia" but not as "intellectual" unless you had been professionally engaged in telling people how to improve society. :-)
Hmmm. "Professionally engaged" - no. Have I attended 90+% of the last
15 years of our local municipal Council? Am I on a first name basis
with the mayor? Yes and yes. Has he paid me to do it? Well I've served
on 4 municipally appointed advisory committees and eaten the public's
treats and drunk their coffee. Got an excellent umbrella and some nice
swag when my last term ended. Probably not what you had in mind :)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
One of the
high points in my undergraduate days was hearing that the 4-color
theorem had been proven after 200+ years. A friendly professor gave me
the reference which I found in the university library and while I
understood the summary got completely boggled in the minutiae!
"A confused intelligent", according to Lenin. :-)
You undoubtedly know that the "4-color problem" is a well known
problem in mathematics (and can find as much on it as you want online
if it is unfamiliar) I went back afterwards and thanked the professor
for the cite - he was surprised I had both looked it up and also that
I had come back to thank him. Given I still do that routinely here
you'll see it's a good habit I've been doing for decades. (University
of British Columbia, BSc Applied Mathematics class of 1978)

As for Lenin I'm pretty sure he was never professionally engaged by
the Imperial Russian Empire so presumably neither he nor I qualify.
Not that Lenin's opinion of people like me matters a whit! (As a
small business owner with about 12 employees I would doubtless be an
'exploiter' in his eyes!)
The Horny Goat
2017-10-25 16:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:14:25 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Oh boy you got that one right. I still cringe every time I hear the
term "technology transfer" and I know the harm Beijing has done to my
city Vancouver since 1997.
Let me guess... :-(
Anybody who knows the exploding real estate market and the impact of
foreign capital knows the situation all too well and it's true of most
west coast cities - Vancouver, Seattle, SF, LA not so much. Toronto is
also experiencing the same to a lesser degree.

A lot of it is said to involve money laundering and the local papers
have been full of criminal investigations involving casinos.
The Old Man
2017-10-25 12:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Which very much matched the United States of the 1950s - and very much
begs the question "If not Ike who?" McArthur eliminated himself based
on how he ended his military career,
Well, he was considered something of a martyr by many but as far
as I can tell he was too pompous, too overbearing and too full of
... well, of himself.
And there were a few people who remembered his actions during the Bonus Marches of the early 1931 when he was the Army Chief of Staff and in charge of clearing out the veterans and their families. A couple of men died and dozens more were wounded during the riots and most of the remaining lost what little that they had left. While HE didn't kill anyone, it all happened under his watch.
This could come back to bite him in the ass twenty years later. Remember to, the excuse of "I was just obeying orders" had been legally thrown out at Nuremburg.

Regards,
John Braungart
Alex Milman
2017-10-25 14:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Which very much matched the United States of the 1950s - and very much
begs the question "If not Ike who?" McArthur eliminated himself based
on how he ended his military career,
Well, he was considered something of a martyr by many but as far
as I can tell he was too pompous, too overbearing and too full of
... well, of himself.
And there were a few people who remembered his actions during the Bonus Marches of the early 1931 when he was the Army Chief of Staff and in charge of clearing out the veterans and their families. A couple of men died and dozens more were wounded during the riots and most of the remaining lost what little that they had left. While HE didn't kill anyone, it all happened under his watch.
This could come back to bite him in the ass twenty years later. Remember to, the excuse of "I was just obeying orders" had been legally thrown out at Nuremburg.
This too. And it also could be reminded that quite a few unfavorable things could be said about his leadership during both WWII and Korean War and AFAIK his obsession with self-glorification did not universally endeared him to his subordinates and colleagues (if the documentaries in a movie are real, based on what did he claim himself a greatest general?)

OTOH, Ike had almost impeccable record against a much stronger opponent and demonstrated diplomatic skills (dealing with the heads of states and leading a truly international force) combined with an appearance of a modest "average" guy from a humble background. Much more attractive as a political figure.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-24 01:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
I would guess that he fell into the category of
"useful idiots"; regarding himself as a critic of
Communism...
I'm not sure if he really considered himself as such.
Not a serious, analytical, just someone who pointed
out some obvious faux pas of the Soviet system -
i.e. a few trees without ever seeing the forest.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-24 18:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
I would guess that he fell into the category of
"useful idiots"; regarding himself as a critic of
Communism...
I'm not sure if he really considered himself as such.
Not a serious, analytical, just someone who pointed
out some obvious faux pas of the Soviet system -
i.e. a few trees without ever seeing the forest.
But he did not even pretend to be serious. His book is clearly a humorous literature with no pretenses of being something deeper. Anyway, a big portion of it is about his "experiences" in West Point and Afghanistan (with a lot of details on falcon hunt, training the dogs, etc.).
pyotr filipivich
2017-10-28 23:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Have you heard of the "Gell-Mann Effect"? (Named for
Nobel laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who first
codified it.) Gell-Mann noted that people very often
complain that a press report is garbled or misstated
when it is something they know about personally. Yet
these same people take press reports on other subjects
at face value. They don't make the logical step from
the few press errors they see to the general proposition
that the press are _frequently_, even _usually_ wrong.
At the risk of sounding immodest, I usually do. :-)
Same here. Because my experience has caused me to realize that
errors in parts cause the whole to be problematic.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
David Tenner
2017-10-07 23:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia
huh?
What do you mean by this?
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay
in Austria only on a temporary basis.
I doubt very much that the 1943 agreement to restore Austria was part of a
deal to make Czechoslovakia a Soviet satellite, given that in 1943 it was
anything but clear who would liberate either Vienna or Prague. It is quite
possible that at that point Stalin still looked forward to working with a
"friendly" but non-communist Czechoslovakia led by Benes.
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-08 00:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Keep in mind that Austria was an "exchange" for Czechoslovakia
huh?
What do you mean by this?
That Czechoslovakia would go to the SU while the Soviet troops will stay
in Austria only on a temporary basis.
I doubt very much that the 1943 agreement to restore Austria was part of a
deal to make Czechoslovakia a Soviet satellite, given that in 1943 it was
anything but clear who would liberate either Vienna or Prague.
I said that the fate of Austria was decided in 1943, not that deal "A for C" was made at that time. However, deal regarding Czechoslovakia had been clearly made before the war was over: Patton had been fuming about not being allowed to take Prague even if he was closer to it than the Soviets. By that time Soviet Vienna Offensive was over so there was a complete clarity on who can liberate what and the American compliance with the Soviet wishes seemingly hints to quid pro quo arrangement.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-08 01:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I said that the fate of Austria was decided in 1943, not that deal "A for C" was made at that time. However, deal regarding Czechoslovakia had been clearly made before the war was over: Patton had been fuming about not being allowed to take Prague even if he was closer to it than the Soviets. By that time Soviet Vienna Offensive was over so there was a complete clarity on who can liberate what and the American compliance with the Soviet wishes seemingly hints to quid pro quo arrangement.
One of the reasons Patton was not allowed to go to Prague is that
there had been an SS revolt featuring Vlasov's army and other
non-German SS units which the Soviets did NOT want surrendering to US
forces in the area.

It was one of the nastiest two week periods of the whole war and the
Czechs got a first hand look (well before 1948 and 1956) of just how
violent the Soviet army could be if allowed.
Alex Milman
2017-10-08 03:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
I said that the fate of Austria was decided in 1943, not that deal "A for C" was made at that time. However, deal regarding Czechoslovakia had been clearly made before the war was over: Patton had been fuming about not being allowed to take Prague even if he was closer to it than the Soviets. By that time Soviet Vienna Offensive was over so there was a complete clarity on who can liberate what and the American compliance with the Soviet wishes seemingly hints to quid pro quo arrangement.
One of the reasons Patton was not allowed to go to Prague is that
there had been an SS revolt featuring Vlasov's army and other
non-German SS units
There was no "SS revolt": there was Prague Uprising which SS troops tried to suppress.
Post by The Horny Goat
which the Soviets did NOT want surrendering to US
forces in the area.
"Suggesting to General Antonov that a U.S. advance to Prague was now feasible, General Eisenhower was informed that such was not desired by the Soviets. During the meeting with Marshal Ivan Konev on 5 May, General Omar Bradley also proposed the same offer. However, Marshal Konev – while he appreciated the good will of the American commander – refused the offer because Bradley's proposal violated the negotiated borderline between Soviet and Anglo-American forces, therefore Konev had no authority to accept it. Konev also promised that the USSR alone would destroy local German forces as soon as possible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Offensive#Political_and_military_developments

Uprising in Prague started on May 5th, Soviet offensive started on May 6th and the 1st Division of the Russian Liberation Army joined uprising between 5th and 7th. Clearly, even by the "optimistic" timeline the borderline decision was taken before these events which means that ROA could not be a factor in that decision.

As for the practical side of the events, the 1st Division took (by May 7) radio station and airport in Prague but seemingly was unable to prevent advancement of the SS troops. Almost immediately it started having the problems with the heavily communist leadership of the uprising.
On May 8th "The 1st KONR Division, its relations with the ČNR broken down and realizing no quarter could be expected from Soviet forces, joined SS and other German troops in a wary alliance of convenience and starting moving west.The KONR 2nd Division had already contacted the Americans and started the march west." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army

They unsuccessfully tried to surrender to Patton. More than a thousand soldiers who managed to surrender had been extradited to the Soviets by the Allies, due to a previous agreement between Churchill and Stalin that all ROA soldiers be returned to the USSR.

In other words, what you wrote seems to be a historical legend (advertised, among others, by Solzhenitsyn who is not the best source of the historic information unless when he was directly quoting from "Stalin's canal").
Post by The Horny Goat
It was one of the nastiest two week periods of the whole war and the
Czechs got a first hand look (well before 1948 and 1956) of just how
violent the Soviet army could be if allowed.
Not sure what you are talking about. The whole Prague Offensive took less than a week (May 6th - 11th) so which "two weeks"? Are you saying that the Red Army (there was no "Soviet Army" at that time) was excessively nasty to the Czechs? Somehow I doubt it. Or that the "Czech Hell" was done by the Red Army and not the Czech partisans?
The Horny Goat
2017-10-08 03:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 20:08:51 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Not sure what you are talking about. The whole Prague Offensive took less than a week (May 6th - 11th) so which "two weeks"? Are you saying that the Red Army (there was no "Soviet Army" at that time) was excessively nasty to the Czechs? Somehow I doubt it. Or that the "Czech Hell" was done by the Red Army and not the Czech partisans?
No - I'm saying the Czechs got a first hand glance of what the Red
Army could do to those they really didn't like. The average Czech in
Prague was a bystander not a participant.

I said two weeks as an upper bound lest someone say I had messed up
the beginning and end dates. The Czechs' "turn" came later.
Alex Milman
2017-10-08 15:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 20:08:51 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Not sure what you are talking about. The whole Prague Offensive took less than a week (May 6th - 11th) so which "two weeks"? Are you saying that the Red Army (there was no "Soviet Army" at that time) was excessively nasty to the Czechs? Somehow I doubt it. Or that the "Czech Hell" was done by the Red Army and not the Czech partisans?
No - I'm saying the Czechs got a first hand glance of what the Red
Army could do to those they really didn't like. The average Czech in
Prague was a bystander not a participant.
Sorry, but I wonder if you have an idea on a subject you are talking about.

There was an uprising in Prague which started on May 5th. To crush it the Germans had been systematically destroying the city. At the news of the uprising the Soviets started their offensive a day ahead of the planned date.
The American troops had been closer and their reconnaissance units reached suburbs of Prague but did not help an uprising due to the existing agreement (the insurgent leaders were already informed that American Army would not move from its final positions but an "average Czech in Prague" had no clue so it did not look nice). On May 8, faced with no arriving allied help and the imminent destruction of the city, the insurgents were forced to negotiate, and accepted the German terms presented by General Rudolf Toussaint, the German Military Governor. The agreement allowed the German nationals, including civilians to escape to the West. The 1st ROA Division left with the Germans.

The Red Army entered Prague on May 9th, AFTER the Germans left so the whole thing about "those they really didn't like" and an average citizen of Prague watching <what exactly?> does not make sense to me.

As far as "those they really didn't like" is involved, the Czechs made it quite clear whom THEY don't like (the Germans) and killed quite a few of them.
Post by The Horny Goat
I said two weeks as an upper bound lest someone say I had messed up
the beginning and end dates.
Does not make a slightest sense because the Soviets simply were not in Prague until the fight was over and the whole "Prague Offensive" took less than a week.
Post by The Horny Goat
The Czechs' "turn" came later.
Benefit of a hindsight is a great thing but knowledge of the future was not available in 1945.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-09 05:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Another possibility:

The US stays out of WW II, due to President Burton Wheeler.

Without US support, the British and Dutch don't embargo oil
to Japan, which remains bogged down in China; there is no
Pacific War.

Britain wins in North Africa in 1942, but lacks the muscle
to do much more; Britain pours most resources into Bomber
Command.

The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943. French Africa
turns Allied in late 1943. In early 1944, the Schwarze Kapelle
assassinate Hitler and Goering, but fumble the follow-on coup
d'état. Himmler seizes power, and conducts an indiscriminate
purge of the Army and massive expansion of the SS. This goads
remaining Army leaders into another coup d'état, which only
succeeds in part; Himmler is killed, but Heydrich leads the SS
to victory, after a period of disorder and near-rout on the
Eastern Front.

Britain manages to take advantage of the German troubles by
invading Sardinia. Italy tries to surrender to the Allies,
but Heydrich strikes first, and liquidates the entire Italian
leadership except for the most ardent Fascists - including the
King and his court. Italian Communists launch massive partisan
resistance; with the destruction of the monarchy the Communists
become the entire resistance. Britain captures Pantelleria and
the Isola Pelagie.

Britain eventually defeats the Germans (and Italian fascists)
in Sardinia, by mid-1944. Soviet forces roll west and southwest.
The Germans abandon Greece and the Balkans; Britain occupies Crete
and the Dodecanese, having to fight some German left-behinds.
(There were some in OTL.) Communist Partisans seize control of the
mainland; Britain has no resources to intervene there, because...

The Germans strip France of troops to patch up the Eastern Front,
and British troops finally land in France, where they are _not_
welcomed by the Communist-dominated Resistance, and have limited
success against the Germans, due to their feeble strength (compared
to OTL OVERLORD).

Soviet forces overrun the rest of the Balkans and break into
northeastern Italy. Joining with the Partisans they overrun
mainland Italy. The British meanwhile occupy Corsica. Britain
has also established a "Free Italy" government in Sardinia,
headed by the Duke of Aosta, who is the senior surviving member
of the Italian royal family. (He was commander in Ethiopia, and
taken prisoner there, thus escaping the fate of his cousins in
Rome; for some reason he avoids dying of malaria in PoW camp.)

In the final stages of the war, Britain clears the Germans out
of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and with much effort
prevents the Communists from seizing power (not a problem in
the Netherlands). British forces meet the Soviets in Germany,
along a line 60-70 km east of the Rhine and on the Weser.

After V-E Day... France is "Western" - barely. The "Kingdom
of Greece" consists of Crete and the Dodecanese; the rest is
the People's Republic of Greece. The "Kingdom of Italy" is
Sardinia, Pantelleria, and the Isola Pelagie. The mainland and
Sicily are the Republic of Italy.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Insane Ranter
2017-10-09 14:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US stays out of WW II, due to President Burton Wheeler.
Without US support, the British and Dutch don't embargo oil
to Japan, which remains bogged down in China; there is no
Pacific War.
Britain wins in North Africa in 1942, but lacks the muscle
to do much more; Britain pours most resources into Bomber
Command.
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943. French Africa
turns Allied in late 1943. In early 1944, the Schwarze Kapelle
assassinate Hitler and Goering, but fumble the follow-on coup
d'état. Himmler seizes power, and conducts an indiscriminate
purge of the Army and massive expansion of the SS. This goads
remaining Army leaders into another coup d'état, which only
succeeds in part; Himmler is killed, but Heydrich leads the SS
to victory, after a period of disorder and near-rout on the
Eastern Front.
Britain manages to take advantage of the German troubles by
invading Sardinia. Italy tries to surrender to the Allies,
but Heydrich strikes first, and liquidates the entire Italian
leadership except for the most ardent Fascists - including the
King and his court. Italian Communists launch massive partisan
resistance; with the destruction of the monarchy the Communists
become the entire resistance. Britain captures Pantelleria and
the Isola Pelagie.
Britain eventually defeats the Germans (and Italian fascists)
in Sardinia, by mid-1944. Soviet forces roll west and southwest.
The Germans abandon Greece and the Balkans; Britain occupies Crete
and the Dodecanese, having to fight some German left-behinds.
(There were some in OTL.) Communist Partisans seize control of the
mainland; Britain has no resources to intervene there, because...
The Germans strip France of troops to patch up the Eastern Front,
and British troops finally land in France, where they are _not_
welcomed by the Communist-dominated Resistance, and have limited
success against the Germans, due to their feeble strength (compared
to OTL OVERLORD).
Soviet forces overrun the rest of the Balkans and break into
northeastern Italy. Joining with the Partisans they overrun
mainland Italy. The British meanwhile occupy Corsica. Britain
has also established a "Free Italy" government in Sardinia,
headed by the Duke of Aosta, who is the senior surviving member
of the Italian royal family. (He was commander in Ethiopia, and
taken prisoner there, thus escaping the fate of his cousins in
Rome; for some reason he avoids dying of malaria in PoW camp.)
In the final stages of the war, Britain clears the Germans out
of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and with much effort
prevents the Communists from seizing power (not a problem in
the Netherlands). British forces meet the Soviets in Germany,
along a line 60-70 km east of the Rhine and on the Weser.
After V-E Day... France is "Western" - barely. The "Kingdom
of Greece" consists of Crete and the Dodecanese; the rest is
the People's Republic of Greece. The "Kingdom of Italy" is
Sardinia, Pantelleria, and the Isola Pelagie. The mainland and
Sicily are the Republic of Italy.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
How long in this scenario till Stalin decides he wants the rest of Italy or France?!!
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-09 15:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
How long in this scenario till Stalin decides he
wants the rest of Italy or France?!!
Royal Italy is out in the ocean, and the Communists
have no way to get at it; the Communists have no
part of France.

It's quite possible the partitions would not last
very long. But that is not the challenge.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-09 17:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:30:20 -0700 (PDT), Insane Ranter
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Rich Rostrom
In the final stages of the war, Britain clears the Germans out
of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and with much effort
prevents the Communists from seizing power (not a problem in
the Netherlands). British forces meet the Soviets in Germany,
along a line 60-70 km east of the Rhine and on the Weser.
After V-E Day... France is "Western" - barely. The "Kingdom
of Greece" consists of Crete and the Dodecanese; the rest is
the People's Republic of Greece. The "Kingdom of Italy" is
Sardinia, Pantelleria, and the Isola Pelagie. The mainland and
Sicily are the Republic of Italy.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
How long in this scenario till Stalin decides he wants the rest of Italy or France?!!
I thought this was a GREAT scenario given the outcome was divided
Greece, Germany and Italy. Probably one of the great single post
scenarios in SHWI history.

One aspect I thought about after I read it was that absent US troops
in 1944 Britain would depend much more heavily on Commonwealth and
Empire troops than in OTL and THAT presents the possibility of a
divided Canada as while Canada conscripted from 1939 only volunteer
conscriptees (e.g. men that volunteered for overseas service) were
sent overseas until 1944. At that point the federal government staged
a referendum which passed but was HIGHLY unpopular in Quebec (which
felt no sympathy for France at all and didn't want Quebecers to "die
for France").

Your scenario implies considerably higher Canadian and Aussie
casualties and higher than WW1 - level casualties could cause Canada
as well to break up. (Bear in mind the population of Canada at that
time was roughly 12 million - barely 1/3 of 2017's)

It goes without saying that it almost certainly delays the atomic bomb
for several years though by more by default than any other factor the
US is stronger than it was in OTL 1945 - PARTICULARLY if there is no
counterpart to the Marshal Plan. (Though that might happen mostly in
terms of countering Soviet domination of Europe)

It looks like a rather nasty Europe by 1960.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-12 17:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Greece, Germany and Italy. Probably one of the great single post
scenarios in SHWI history.
<blush>
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-09 18:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US stays out of WW II, due to President Burton Wheeler.
Without US support, the British and Dutch don't embargo oil
to Japan, which remains bogged down in China; there is no
Pacific War.
Britain wins in North Africa in 1942, but lacks the muscle
to do much more; Britain pours most resources into Bomber
Command.
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943. French Africa
turns Allied in late 1943. In early 1944, the Schwarze Kapelle
assassinate Hitler and Goering, but fumble the follow-on coup
d'état. Himmler seizes power, and conducts an indiscriminate
purge of the Army and massive expansion of the SS. This goads
remaining Army leaders into another coup d'état, which only
succeeds in part; Himmler is killed, but Heydrich leads the SS
to victory, after a period of disorder and near-rout on the
Eastern Front.
Britain manages to take advantage of the German troubles by
invading Sardinia. Italy tries to surrender to the Allies,
but Heydrich strikes first, and liquidates the entire Italian
leadership except for the most ardent Fascists - including the
King and his court. Italian Communists launch massive partisan
resistance; with the destruction of the monarchy the Communists
become the entire resistance. Britain captures Pantelleria and
the Isola Pelagie.
Britain eventually defeats the Germans (and Italian fascists)
in Sardinia, by mid-1944. Soviet forces roll west and southwest.
The Germans abandon Greece and the Balkans; Britain occupies Crete
and the Dodecanese, having to fight some German left-behinds.
(There were some in OTL.) Communist Partisans seize control of the
mainland; Britain has no resources to intervene there, because...
The Germans strip France of troops to patch up the Eastern Front,
and British troops finally land in France, where they are _not_
welcomed by the Communist-dominated Resistance, and have limited
success against the Germans, due to their feeble strength (compared
to OTL OVERLORD).
Soviet forces overrun the rest of the Balkans and break into
northeastern Italy. Joining with the Partisans they overrun
mainland Italy. The British meanwhile occupy Corsica. Britain
has also established a "Free Italy" government in Sardinia,
headed by the Duke of Aosta, who is the senior surviving member
of the Italian royal family. (He was commander in Ethiopia, and
taken prisoner there, thus escaping the fate of his cousins in
Rome; for some reason he avoids dying of malaria in PoW camp.)
In the final stages of the war, Britain clears the Germans out
of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and with much effort
prevents the Communists from seizing power (not a problem in
the Netherlands). British forces meet the Soviets in Germany,
along a line 60-70 km east of the Rhine and on the Weser.
After V-E Day... France is "Western" - barely. The "Kingdom
of Greece" consists of Crete and the Dodecanese; the rest is
the People's Republic of Greece. The "Kingdom of Italy" is
Sardinia, Pantelleria, and the Isola Pelagie. The mainland and
Sicily are the Republic of Italy.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
How long in this scenario till Stalin decides he wants the rest of Italy or France?!!
How Stalin would get anywhere close to any of these countries to start with? Without the US supplies the Red Army (and the Soviet economy in general) is severely handicapped by shortage of the moving stock which they can't produce themselves and which the Brits can't supply in the adequate numbers. Then, of course, there is a shortage of aluminum (crippling production of T34's) and high octane fuel (impacting air force), absence of the canned goods means a greater stress on already overstressed agriculture and other endless problems. Hardly makes sense to speculate about Stalin wanting more. How about him considering a separate deal with Germany.

Not to mention that WC was advocating the Allied landing on the Balkans (to attend to what he considered the British imperial interests) rather than in France. In OTL this idea was rejected both by the US and the SU but here he has a free hand.
Alex Milman
2017-10-09 17:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
The US stays out of WW II, due to President Burton Wheeler.
Without US support, the British and Dutch don't embargo oil
to Japan, which remains bogged down in China; there is no
Pacific War.
Britain wins in North Africa in 1942, but lacks the muscle
to do much more; Britain pours most resources into Bomber
Command.
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very serious problems with turning the tide and especially with the further developments.

The ATL Lend Lease is strictly British (which should not be shrugged off).

In 1941 the Brits had been a major source of the heavy and medium tanks (estimated 30 - 40% before Moscow counter-offensive). By July of 1942 approximately 8% of the 13,500 tanks in service had been British (but it leaves approximately the same number of the American tanks).

AFAIK, similar situation existed with aircraft: in 1941 - early 1942 the
supplies were predominantly British.

However, later the US supplies picked up ending with approximately 94% of the total supplies I(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LendLease#US_deliveries_to_the_Soviet_Union):

"The United States sold to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.... a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR" ... "11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)" and "7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans)"

Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:

3,000+ Hurricanes
4,000+ other aircraft
27 naval vessels
5,218 tanks (including 1,380 Valentines from Canada)
5,000+ anti-tank guns
4,020 ambulances and trucks
323 machinery trucks
1,212 Universal Carriers and Loyd Carriers (with another 1,348 from Canada )
1,721 motorcycles
£1.15bn worth of aircraft engines
1,474 radar sets
4,338 radio sets
600 naval radar and sonar sets
Hundreds of naval guns
15 million pairs of boots

So the British supplies had been extremely valuable but not adequate for the needs. How would that gap be patched? Notice the difference in the trucks: absence of the US supplies would create a terrible problem especially during the offensives. Soviet truck production during WWII (https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=145035):

"Out of total 205,000 trucks produced, 150,400 were consumed by the military. So, on 22.6.41 Red Army had around 270,000 trucks, and received another 745,000 during the war. Out of these, 150,000 were new domestic production, 221,500 trucks drafted from the industry and agriculture sectors, 60,600 captured enemy's trucks and 312,600 lend-lease trucks." As you can see, the whole domestic production amounted to less than a half of Lend Lease supplies (I assume that a portion of the supplied trucks had been used for the non-military purposes and that those drafted from industry and agriculture belong to the initial period of war). Soviet truck production picked in 1944 - 57,400 trucks. Not too impressive. Keep in mind that most of the Soviet production were 2 wheel trucks with a relatively low capacity (1.5 tons, IIRC) and that the Jeeps, halftracks and reconnaissance vehicles (practically absent in the Soviet production) are not included.

Also keep in mind supply of the components and spare parts. Anything from chassis to the ball bearings.

Ditto for the tanks: by the end of WWII most of the tank Guards had been equipped with Shermans: the rubberized threads made them much better for the deep advances than T34's (especially when it comes to the paved roads). And, IIRC, supply of aluminum was quite important for T-34 carburetor.

Remove the American portion of the supplies and the Soviets may have fundamental problems. They still may end up pushing Nazis out of the Soviet territory but it may happen later and with a greater exhausting preventing from developing success along the OTL lines.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-12 17:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very
serious problems with turning the tide and
especially with the further developments.
Indeed - but _many_ observers have argued that
Germany _never_ had a chance to defeat the USSR, or
that any such hope was gone by 1942. If so, then
Soviet victory on the Eastern Front is, apparently,
inevitable. And if and when the USSR conquers
Germany, the rest of continental Europe would go
with. (Except perhaps the western fringe.)

As to how the USSR could "hang on" and "turn the
tide"... Assume that Stalin is _not_ in complete
delusion about German intentions in 1941, and that
Soviet forces are decently alerted and prepared.
The Germans will still win the Battle of the
Frontiers, and decisively, but Soviet casualties
could be _halved_, and the losses of cadres and
specialists reduced even further.

This would allow Axis attacks to be stopped sooner,
with fewer Soviet losses ("hanging on") and the
USSR to push the Axis back ("turn the tide").

This in turn should be enough for the Schwarz
Kapelle to strike at Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Then comes the failed coup, Himmler's rule,
another failed coup, and the breakdown of the
German state and army, which provides a Soviet
victory.

Is this an "easy" scenario? No, but plausible,
IMO, and meets the challenge.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-12 18:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very
serious problems with turning the tide and
especially with the further developments.
Indeed - but _many_ observers have argued that
Germany _never_ had a chance to defeat the USSR, or
that any such hope was gone by 1942.
Of course. Starting with ALL Soviet historians. :-)

The main problem with the "observers" is that the Soviet ones had been predictable and the foreign ones were not in a position to judge due to the lack of an adequate information.

It is more or less clear that by the mid-end 1942 the Germans made themselves obnoxious enough to the local (non-Baltic) population not to count on a political breakdown of the SU. Tippelskirch remarked that prior to (mid, IIRC) 1942 the Germans did not have partisan problems in Ukraine.

So we can probably say with a certainty that political breakdown of the SU was highly unlikely starting from mid-1942. However, the rest "turning the tide" is a different issue because it is hard to tell what would the Soviet industry be able to come with having only British Lend Lease (BTW, would it be greater or smaller with US neutral?). Of course, by stretching as they were the Germans became strategically vulnerable so something like Stalingrad is quite easy to imagine but the things are much less clear with the following events. How the things would develop without hundreds thousands of the US trucks? After all, you need to bring supplies to the front line and to be able to move them with the advancing troops. You need vehicles for motorized infantry, etc. You can probably do without them but it means that you are moving much slower with a greater reliance upon a horsepower. How will you manage without an adequate supply of aluminum (used, among other places, in T-34 carburetor), etc.

With too many items being unavailable or in a short supply who can clearly tell how things would develop?
Post by Rich Rostrom
If so, then
Soviet victory on the Eastern Front is, apparently,
inevitable.
"If so" :-)

Very few things were inevitable and "victory" could mean quite a few things including Soviets pushing Germans out of their territory and not being able to move far beyond it. This still would be a victory (of the kind).
Post by Rich Rostrom
And if and when the USSR conquers
Germany, the rest of continental Europe would go
with. (Except perhaps the western fringe.)
From the optimistic statements that Germany could not defeat the SU a conclusion that the SU would inevitably conquer Germany is not necessary an inevitable conclusion. Especially with the US absent from the picture.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As to how the USSR could "hang on" and "turn the
tide"... Assume that Stalin is _not_ in complete
delusion about German intentions in 1941, and that
Soviet forces are decently alerted and prepared.
This is an old legend which is by now thoroughly compromised. The Red Army could not be "prepared" much more than it was in OTL because it suffered from the numerous structural issues which could not be easily resolved by an order from the top. The country was in a process of building up its industry and its army and as a result was lacking many things which Germany had for quite a few decades, starting from professional technical and military cadres. By 1941 a high percentage of the personnel in the Soviet mechanized units did not have ANY experience with any vehicle (forget the tanks) and had 5 - 6 classes of school education (with a noticeable percentage of the illiterate and those not speaking Russian). Industry was not producing spare parts for the equipment and mechanized units routinely did not have field repair shops they were supposed to have. With the constant switch from one tank model to another, the industry was falling back in production of the armor piercing shells (which, anyway, were inferior to German "under-caliber" ones) so the tanks had mostly anti-personnel ammunition. The tanks, even the over-advertised T-34 and KV had numerous technical problems and, contrary to the legend, were quite vulnerable unless one was shooting straight into the front armor of their turret (hit under turret would immediately jam it and from the sides they were quite vulnerable). Infantry had been mostly equipped with the semi-automatic rifles which they were not trained to handle properly and which were too complex and costly to produce during the war. As a result, Soviet infantry "rolled back" to the old Mosin rifles later to be augmented with the submachine guns (PPD).
Tractors used for transporting the artillery pieces or moving damaged tanks did not have adequate power and were not available in the necessary numbers, etc.
Unlike the Germans who had nucleus of their force preserved and trained since after WWI, most of the Soviet non-coms served only for couple years and serious "production" of the officer cadres started only in 1930's (with a severe shortage of those capable to teach them).

Shortage of the civilian technical/engineering cadres resulted in slow design and even slower introduction of the new models of weapons and shortage of the machine tools had been a contributing factor.

As for being altered and prepared, the Soviet mechanized units started counter-offensive operations almost immediately after the German attack. Of course, it ended with a crushing defeat but the same goes for most of the Soviet offensives prior to the Stalingrad so unpreparedness and being taken by surprise probably were not the main reason for the defeats.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The Germans will still win the Battle of the
Frontiers, and decisively, but Soviet casualties
could be _halved_, and the losses of cadres and
specialists reduced even further.
It would be nice but quite unrealistic, especially taking into an account that the whole story about being caught by surprise is mostly BS pushed by Stalinist propaganda (somehow, looking as a naïve idiot always was OK for the Russian self-esteem; "... at night, suddenly Bonaparte's troops crossed the Neman" - from popular "heroic" play).
Post by Rich Rostrom
This would allow Axis attacks to be stopped sooner,
with fewer Soviet losses ("hanging on") and the
USSR to push the Axis back ("turn the tide").
You keep forgetting to in OTL "push back" happened with a serious help from the Allies and that by the time it did happen the bulk of that help was coming from the US. How the Soviets would be able to compensate for the absent material of all types is anybody's guess and speculations like your above are too vague to make some definite conclusions.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-13 01:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:32:36 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very
serious problems with turning the tide and
especially with the further developments.
Indeed - but _many_ observers have argued that
Germany _never_ had a chance to defeat the USSR, or
that any such hope was gone by 1942. If so, then
Soviet victory on the Eastern Front is, apparently,
inevitable. And if and when the USSR conquers
Germany, the rest of continental Europe would go
with. (Except perhaps the western fringe.)
If you are suggesting that was true on 1/1/1942 I'll debate that as I
don't think it's true. If you're suggesting 12/31/1942 I'll agree (by
then 6th Army was surrounded and losing heavily)

Could the German army have fought the Red Army to a bloody draw in
1943 with better leadership? Looks that way to me particularly given
the pre-Kursk battles of April/May. Some have said "Stalingrad proved
Germany couldn't win, Kursk meant the Soviets would" with the period
between being the critical moment. I would argue that 1942 on the
Eastern front was critical with so much time being lost after the fall
of Voronezh. When you look at the front on 30 June 1942 vs 1 October
1942 it's clear numerous opportunities were lost by the Germans.

I tend to be one of those who would argue the world would be better
off if Russia HAD lost at Stalingrad since I don't see them losing
completely (eg. creating the German fantasy of the Arkangel-Astrakhan
line) and think Europe would have been better with the Soviets ending
the war on their pre-war (or even 6/22/1941) boundaries than on the
Elbe.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As to how the USSR could "hang on" and "turn the
tide"... Assume that Stalin is _not_ in complete
delusion about German intentions in 1941, and that
Soviet forces are decently alerted and prepared.
The Germans will still win the Battle of the
Frontiers, and decisively, but Soviet casualties
could be _halved_, and the losses of cadres and
specialists reduced even further.
While I agree with you it's fair to say that Stalin was the best thing
the Germans had going for them in the 1941 campaign. I am exaggerating
but surely not by much.
Post by Rich Rostrom
This would allow Axis attacks to be stopped sooner,
with fewer Soviet losses ("hanging on") and the
USSR to push the Axis back ("turn the tide").
Simply not losing half the Red Air Force in June 1941 would have
produced the effects you're talking about! That particular fiasco I do
believe Stalin has to "wear" as he was insistent his troops move
forward of their 1939 defence lines.
Post by Rich Rostrom
This in turn should be enough for the Schwarz
Kapelle to strike at Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Then comes the failed coup, Himmler's rule,
another failed coup, and the breakdown of the
German state and army, which provides a Soviet
victory.
Is this an "easy" scenario? No, but plausible,
IMO, and meets the challenge.
Alex Milman
2017-10-13 19:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:32:36 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR hangs on, and turns the tide in 1943.
But without the OTL US supplies there will be very
serious problems with turning the tide and
especially with the further developments.
Indeed - but _many_ observers have argued that
Germany _never_ had a chance to defeat the USSR, or
that any such hope was gone by 1942. If so, then
Soviet victory on the Eastern Front is, apparently,
inevitable. And if and when the USSR conquers
Germany, the rest of continental Europe would go
with. (Except perhaps the western fringe.)
If you are suggesting that was true on 1/1/1942 I'll debate that as I
don't think it's true. If you're suggesting 12/31/1942 I'll agree (by
then 6th Army was surrounded and losing heavily)
Well, as bad as it was, loss of a single army did not mean inevitable Soviet victory. It was a serious loss of the face but, the numbers-wise, it was almost nothing comparing to the huge encirclements of 1941. Assessments for Kiev alone are somewhere between 0.5M and 1M (and at Smolensk the losses were on a similar scale). Of course, it was indicative of the German overstretching but this was remedied after the fast and organized withdrawal from Caucasus. OTOH, Operation Mars ("Rzhev meat grinder") which was going on simultaneously with Stalingrad counter-offensive, ended up with a bloody stalemate (or rather a failure, as far as the Soviet goals were involved).

IMO, even at the end of 1942 things could proceed either way (and in a spring of 1943 the Germans scored a major victory). However in mid-1943 German eventual loss became pretty much a certainty.

But all these speculations mean little within framework of this scenario because in OTL the American help was a growing factor and it is hard to tell what would happen without it. Anyway, AFAIK, in mid-1942 a possibility of Stalin looking for a separate peace was seriously considered by the Western Allies.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-14 02:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
If you are suggesting that was true on 1/1/1942 I'll debate that as I
don't think it's true. If you're suggesting 12/31/1942 I'll agree (by
then 6th Army was surrounded and losing heavily)
Well, as bad as it was, loss of a single army did not mean inevitable Soviet victory. It was a serious loss of the face but, the numbers-wise, it was almost nothing comparing to the huge encirclements of 1941. Assessments for Kiev alone are somewhere between 0.5M and 1M (and at Smolensk the losses were on a similar scale). Of course, it was indicative of the German overstretching but this was remedied after the fast and organized withdrawal from Caucasus. OTOH, Operation Mars ("Rzhev meat grinder") which was going on simultaneously with Stalingrad counter-offensive, ended up with a bloody stalemate (or rather a failure, as far as the Soviet goals were involved).
IMO, even at the end of 1942 things could proceed either way (and in a spring of 1943 the Germans scored a major victory). However in mid-1943 German eventual loss became pretty much a certainty.
But all these speculations mean little within framework of this scenario because in OTL the American help was a growing factor and it is hard to tell what would happen without it. Anyway, AFAIK, in mid-1942 a possibility of Stalin looking for a separate peace was seriously considered by the Western Allies.
If you're saying Lendlease was a major factor in 1941-42 I would
dispute that. No question it was a big factor starting in summer and
fall of 1943 going through to the end of the war.

However both Stalingrad and Kursk were won without significant US/Brit
aid. Bagration the following year was a different story.
Alex Milman
2017-10-14 16:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
If you are suggesting that was true on 1/1/1942 I'll debate that as I
don't think it's true. If you're suggesting 12/31/1942 I'll agree (by
then 6th Army was surrounded and losing heavily)
Well, as bad as it was, loss of a single army did not mean inevitable Soviet victory. It was a serious loss of the face but, the numbers-wise, it was almost nothing comparing to the huge encirclements of 1941. Assessments for Kiev alone are somewhere between 0.5M and 1M (and at Smolensk the losses were on a similar scale). Of course, it was indicative of the German overstretching but this was remedied after the fast and organized withdrawal from Caucasus. OTOH, Operation Mars ("Rzhev meat grinder") which was going on simultaneously with Stalingrad counter-offensive, ended up with a bloody stalemate (or rather a failure, as far as the Soviet goals were involved).
IMO, even at the end of 1942 things could proceed either way (and in a spring of 1943 the Germans scored a major victory). However in mid-1943 German eventual loss became pretty much a certainty.
But all these speculations mean little within framework of this scenario because in OTL the American help was a growing factor and it is hard to tell what would happen without it. Anyway, AFAIK, in mid-1942 a possibility of Stalin looking for a separate peace was seriously considered by the Western Allies.
If you're saying Lendlease was a major factor in 1941-42 I would
dispute that.
You can dispute whatever you like but here are the facts:

"By the end of 1941, early shipments of Matilda, Valentine and Tetrarch tanks represented only 6.5% of total Soviet tank production but over 25% of medium and heavy tanks produced for the Red Army.[46][47] The British tanks first saw action with the 138 Independent Tank Battalion in the Volga Reservoir on 20 November 1941.Lend-Lease tanks constituted 30 to 40 percent of heavy and medium tank strength before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance
Post by The Horny Goat
No question it was a big factor starting in summer and
fall of 1943 going through to the end of the war.
However both Stalingrad and Kursk were won without significant US/Brit
aid.
"In 1942, Britain provided a further 2,487 tanks and the USA 3,023 tanks. The first units equipped with Valentines and Matildas went into service in the Staraya Russa and Valdai areas in December 1941 and January 1942."

You are more than welcomed to produce a detailed breakdown of the LendLease supplies in 1942 and comparable numbers of the Soviet production to back up your statement.
Post by The Horny Goat
Bagration the following year was a different story.
Here are some opinions on the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Significance):


"According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease played a crucial role in winning the war:
On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[24]

Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-15 06:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
If you're saying Lendlease was a major factor in 1941-42 I would
dispute that. No question it was a big factor starting in summer and
fall of 1943 going through to the end of the war.
However both Stalingrad and Kursk were won without significant US/Brit
aid. Bagration the following year was a different story.
There was a long and very erudite discussion of whether
Western aid was critical to Soviet survival in 1941-1942
on soc-history-war-world-war-ii.

The final conclusion was that it was too close to call.
The Western contribution was small - but the Soviet
margin of victory may have been even smaller.

As to 1943 - by the time of Kursk, the USSR had received
considerable aid and was relying on it to fill gaps in
its war economy - notably food production and railroad
equipment.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-15 19:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
If you're saying Lendlease was a major factor in 1941-42 I would
dispute that. No question it was a big factor starting in summer and
fall of 1943 going through to the end of the war.
However both Stalingrad and Kursk were won without significant US/Brit
aid. Bagration the following year was a different story.
There was a long and very erudite discussion of whether
Western aid was critical to Soviet survival in 1941-1942
on soc-history-war-world-war-ii.
The final conclusion was that it was too close to call.
The Western contribution was small
Well, the British contribution in 1941 had been relatively modest but if we are talking about approximately 30% of the tanks used during the Battle for Moscow (among other items) it is not "small" in the terms of importance.
Post by Rich Rostrom
- but the Soviet
margin of victory may have been even smaller.
Which period are you talking about? Most of 1942 victory was a series of the defeats and beginning of the victory is second half of November (November 23 - encirclement accomplished). For that period survival was an ability to keep fighting and during 1942 volume of LendLease amounted to almost 2.5M tons (comparing to 360K in 1941).
Post by Rich Rostrom
As to 1943 - by the time of Kursk, the USSR had received
considerable aid and was relying on it to fill gaps in
its war economy - notably food production and railroad
equipment.
Don't forget the trucks and strategic materials. Of course, not 92.7% as for railroad equipment (seems to be total for the war) but at least 30% of the trucks (or 64% according to http://statehistory.ru/35/Lend-liz--Mify-i-realnost/), 13% of aircraft, etc. Taking into an account importance of the railroads in the SU (and construction of the new ones during the war), the railroad equipment alone amounts to a critical "strategic factor".

On a strictly unscientific level, according to my father, by mid 1942 most of the Soviet trucks/cars in his army had been out of use due to the absence of the spare parts (the trucks had been vandalized to provide them so they had continuously diminishing pool) and they switched to the Studebakers and Jeeps.
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-16 16:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
On a strictly unscientific level, according to my
father, by mid 1942 most of the Soviet trucks/cars
in his army had been out of use due to the absence
of the spare parts (the trucks had been vandalized
to provide them so they had continuously diminishing
pool) and they switched to the Studebakers and Jeeps.
Minor historical factoid: the famous and very effective
"Katyusha" multi-barrel rocket launchers were almost all
mounted on Studebaker trucks.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-16 17:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
On a strictly unscientific level, according to my
father, by mid 1942 most of the Soviet trucks/cars
in his army had been out of use due to the absence
of the spare parts (the trucks had been vandalized
to provide them so they had continuously diminishing
pool) and they switched to the Studebakers and Jeeps.
Minor historical factoid: the famous and very effective
"Katyusha" multi-barrel rocket launchers were almost all
mounted on Studebaker trucks.
You touched a very interesting issue which is a perfect illustration to the subject. The 1st model was mounted on ZIS-5 trucks (only 40 launchers had been built before war started). By the end of 1942, 3,237 Katyusha launchers of all types had been built mounted on ZIS-5, ZIS-5V, ZIS-6. In 1941, a small number of BM-13 launchers were mounted on STZ-5 artillery tractors. A few were also tried on KV tank chassis as the KV-1K. But starting from 1943 Studebaker US6 2½ ton truck became a standard mounting with more than 1,800 of this model manufactured by the end of World War II.

Model BM-8 also had been installed (among other options) on Studebaker and, interesting factoid, for the Studebaker-based model (BM-8-48) Leonid Shvarts, Moisei Komissarchik and engineer Yakov Shor received the Stalin prize.
Rob
2017-10-04 01:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan) were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an illegitimate country and government.
I've suggested the following in the past:

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 8:33:43 PM UTC-5, Rob wrote:

Now with illustrative maps linked
Post by WolfBear
The challenge is to alter the World War Two endgame so that any of these partitions happen -
a) Hungary is divided between a communist East Hungary (east of the Danube) and a non-communist West Hungary (west of the Danube)
http://imgur.com/gallery/PDTYNxZ
Post by WolfBear
b) Yugoslavia is divided between a Communist West Yugoslavia run by Tito and a non-communist (probably royalist) East Yugoslavia run by the Chetnik-Royalist leadership
http://imgur.com/gallery/w561mYY
Post by WolfBear
c) Bulgaria is divided between a Communist North Bulgaria and Non-Communist (probably Royalist) South Bulgaria
http://imgur.com/gallery/KTynXXR
Post by WolfBear
D) Romania is divided between a Communist North Romania and Non-Communist (probably Royalist) South Romania
http://imgur.com/gallery/s4lUAll

---Aside from these, in other parts of the world, there's the prospect of

E) a north and south Turkey if Turkey goes Axis or gets invaded by the Germans and liberated by WAllies in the south and the Soviets in the north

F) a north and south Italy if the Wallies face more setbacks or the USA is not in and the Soviets get to north Italy first

G) An east and west Spain if the Spanish Civil War is stopped in place mid-course (of course that is really hard, probably impossible, to arrange)

H) North and South Greece with boosted Soviet and Yugoslav partisan performance

I) North and South Norway if the Soviets have spare capacity to impose their will on the north

J) East and West Denmark if the Soviets have the spare capacity to occupy the Baltic islands of Denmark (like Zealand where Copenhagen is) and break a socialist regime from a monarchy left with control over Jutland and Sjaelland

K) North and South Iran

L) North and South Afghanistan

M) North and south China has been done a lot, just move the boundary up to the Great Wall or down to the Yangzi to taste

N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido

O) East (Capitalist) and West (Communist) Russia if Alaska stays Russian instead of American or Canadian and it becomes a refuge for non-communists

P) You forgot OTL's North (capitalist) and South (Communist) Yemen

Q) I hardly see a permanent split as plausible but the Communists in Burma, Thailand and the Philippines always had stronger local support in the northern reaches of their countries than from their capitals on south

R) A Lumumbist Congo goes Communist but Katanga becomes a capitalist breakaway

S) Cuba is partitioned, with the main island being Communist, but the Isle of Pines/Isle of Youth becoming a non-communist refuge a la Taiwan.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-10-04 04:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan) were
partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been partitioned
in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two separate countries
where each of them considers the other one to be an illegitimate country and
government.
Now with illustrative maps linked
Post by WolfBear
The challenge is to alter the World War Two endgame so that any of these
partitions happen -
a) Hungary is divided between a communist East Hungary (east of the Danube)
and a non-communist West Hungary (west of the Danube)
http://imgur.com/gallery/PDTYNxZ
Post by WolfBear
b) Yugoslavia is divided between a Communist West Yugoslavia run by Tito and
a non-communist (probably royalist) East Yugoslavia run by the
Chetnik-Royalist leadership
http://imgur.com/gallery/w561mYY
Post by WolfBear
c) Bulgaria is divided between a Communist North Bulgaria and Non-Communist
(probably Royalist) South Bulgaria
http://imgur.com/gallery/KTynXXR
Post by WolfBear
D) Romania is divided between a Communist North Romania and Non-Communist
(probably Royalist) South Romania
http://imgur.com/gallery/s4lUAll
---Aside from these, in other parts of the world, there's the prospect of
E) a north and south Turkey if Turkey goes Axis or gets invaded by the
Germans and liberated by WAllies in the south and the Soviets in the north
East (Soviet zone) and West (Allied zone) more likely I would say.
Post by Rob
F) a north and south Italy if the Wallies face more setbacks or the USA is
not in and the Soviets get to north Italy first
G) An east and west Spain if the Spanish Civil War is stopped in place
mid-course (of course that is really hard, probably impossible, to arrange)
H) North and South Greece with boosted Soviet and Yugoslav partisan performance
You took the words out of my mouth. Almost happened.
Post by Rob
I) North and South Norway if the Soviets have spare capacity to impose their
will on the north
J) East and West Denmark if the Soviets have the spare capacity to occupy the
Baltic islands of Denmark (like Zealand where Copenhagen is) and break a
socialist regime from a monarchy left with control over Jutland and Sjaelland
K) North and South Iran
You took the words out of my mouth. And it almost happened.

Even more likely than a divided Greece, as pro-Communist forces were in
the NW. AFAIK the civil war in greece was more evenly spread.
Post by Rob
L) North and South Afghanistan
M) North and south China has been done a lot, just move the boundary up to
the Great Wall or down to the Yangzi to taste
N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido
More likely just annex it like Kuriles.
Post by Rob
O) East (Capitalist) and West (Communist) Russia if Alaska stays Russian
instead of American or Canadian and it becomes a refuge for non-communists
P) You forgot OTL's North (capitalist) and South (Communist) Yemen
Q) I hardly see a permanent split as plausible but the Communists in Burma,
Thailand and the Philippines always had stronger local support in the
northern reaches of their countries than from their capitals on south
R) A Lumumbist Congo goes Communist but Katanga becomes a capitalist breakaway
In OTL Congo-Brazzaville was Communist (or pro-Communsıst) while
Congo-Kinshasa under Mobutu (renamed Zaire) was capitalist.
Post by Rob
S) Cuba is partitioned, with the main island being Communist, but the Isle of
Pines/Isle of Youth becoming a non-communist refuge a la Taiwan.
Angola could have been partitioned (pro-Communist MPLA North - Pro-West
UNITA South)
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-05 00:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Rob
N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido
More likely just annex it like Kuriles.
Most improbable. The Kuriles were thinly
inhabited, had never been settled to
speak of, and had been owned by Russia
from 1855-1905.

Hokkaido was an integral part of the
Japanese state with millions of people,
which was never ruled by Russia.

However - suppose that Japan got all
Sakhalin in the Treaty of Portsmouth,
and made a concerted effort to settle
it, so that by 1945 it has about 500K
Japanese residents. It comes under
Soviet occupation, and the USSR sets
up a People's Republic of Japan there...
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-05 02:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Rob
N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido
More likely just annex it like Kuriles.
Most improbable. The Kuriles were thinly
inhabited, had never been settled to
speak of, and had been owned by Russia
from 1855-1905.
Hokkaido was an integral part of the
Japanese state with millions of people,
which was never ruled by Russia.
Well, of course it can be argued that Russia never ruled Czechia or Hungary but, unlike these cases, how exactly the Red Army would end up on Hokkaido especially if the US was not fond of that idea? To start with, short of the exciting scenario under which the Soviet soldiers are swimming all the way to Hokkaido or are transporting there by the friendly ASBs, there was no way for them to get on that island due to almost complete absence of a needed craft and a total inexperience in the seaborne operations. Soviet capture of the Kuril Islands became possible thanks to the US ships (the United States secretly transferred 149 ships and craft) but even this operation almost turned into a fiasco and was the only WWII operation in which Soviet troops had greater casualties than Japanese (1.5K vs. 1K) and ended up successfully because Japan capitulated. Now, an attempt to take Hokkaido would require quite a few things that the Soviets did not have on the Pacific. You can start with an absence of a heavy naval artillery (the highest caliber available was 130mm). No need to go any further. :-)
Post by Rich Rostrom
However - suppose that Japan got all
Sakhalin in the Treaty of Portsmouth,
and made a concerted effort to settle
it, so that by 1945 it has about 500K
Japanese residents. It comes under
Soviet occupation, and the USSR sets
up a People's Republic of Japan there...
IMO, somewhat unlikely. Japan claimed all Sakhalin in 1845. In 1855 Japan and Russia signed a treaty which declared that nationals of both countries could inhabit the island: Russians in the north, and Japanese in the south, without a clearly defined boundary between. In 1865 Japan again claimed sovereignty over the whole island but it remained under the joined sovereignty until the signing of the 1875 Treaty of Saint Petersburg, in which Japan surrendered its claims in Sakhalin to Russia in exchange for the Kuril Islands. AFAIK, Japan retained some fishing rights. Then Japan was in a possession of the whole island from 1920 till 1925.

By 1945 population of the Southern Sakhalin was approximately 400,000 people - mostly Japanese and Korean out of which 100K had been evacuated into Japan before WWII was over. Most of the remaining 300K had been gradually repatriated between 1946 and 1950. Approximately 43K Koreans remained on the island (not being accepted by Japan or North Korea). Initially, the intention was to evacuate ALL Koreans but the local administration argued that there are not enough skilled Russian workers ready to settle in the island so they had been left where they are as Sakhalin Koreans: presently 25K in Sakhalin, 10K elsewhere in Russia, 1.5K South in Korea and 1K in North Korea (my deep condolences to them).

As you can see, the SU was not interested in creation of a new socialist Japan.
What would be the reason besides a complete paranoia? Finnish Democratic Republic was declared with a clear purpose to conquer the whole Finland but there was no chance for the SU to conquer any sizeable part of Japan so why bother?
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-06 15:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
As you can see, the SU was not interested in
creation of a new socialist Japan. What would be the
reason besides a complete paranoia? Finnish
Democratic Republic was declared with a clear
purpose to conquer the whole Finland but there was
no chance for the SU to conquer any sizeable part of
Japan so why bother?
I have no idea, it is just a way for Japan to be
partitioned. As to reasons - the USSR wanted all
Sakhalin for obvious purpose of sea access.

_If_ Sakhalin was heavily settled by Japanese, such
that it was recognized as a part of metropolitan
Japan, then the USSR _might_ prefer to control it
through a satellite regime rather than incorporating
it into the USSR.

Displacing its population might risk generating "bad
optics", as the recent phrase goes. I realize that
the Soviets had no qualms about expelling the entire
German population of Prussia and annexing the region.
But that was in the context of wholesale territorial
transfers to and from Poland; there was no such agenda
regarding Japan, so the alternate approach _might_
seem preferable.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2017-10-06 20:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
As you can see, the SU was not interested in
creation of a new socialist Japan. What would be the
reason besides a complete paranoia? Finnish
Democratic Republic was declared with a clear
purpose to conquer the whole Finland but there was
no chance for the SU to conquer any sizeable part of
Japan so why bother?
I have no idea, it is just a way for Japan to be
partitioned.
Calling Sakhalin "Japan" would be an interesting idea. It would also make Stalin a laughingstock of the world so I'm not sure that it would work.
Post by Rich Rostrom
As to reasons - the USSR wanted all
Sakhalin for obvious purpose of sea access.
Well, the SU got ALL Sakhalin without creating a new Japan.
Post by Rich Rostrom
_If_ Sakhalin was heavily settled by Japanese, such
that it was recognized as a part of metropolitan
Japan,
It WAS settled by approximately the same number of Japanese and Koreans as you stated in your scenario (it is an open question if a noticeably bigger number could be supported on the island) but it was obviously NOT recognized as a part of metropolitan Japan and, anyway, from the Soviet perspective it would be Russian land occupied by Japan and calling it "Japan" would undermine the whole claim.
Post by Rich Rostrom
then the USSR _might_ prefer to control it
through a satellite regime rather than incorporating
it into the USSR.
I don't think that this would work out in OTL and I don't see any advantages from the Soviet perspective, especially taking into an account that the island is not self-sustainable.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Displacing its population might risk generating "bad
optics", as the recent phrase goes.
Japanese (and those Koreans who are lucky) would go to Japan just as the Germans went to Germany from the post-WWII Poland.
Post by Rich Rostrom
I realize that
the Soviets had no qualms about expelling the entire
German population of Prussia and annexing the region.
Neither did Poles and, IIRC, Czechs.
Post by Rich Rostrom
But that was in the context of wholesale territorial
transfers to and from Poland; there was no such agenda
regarding Japan,
Repatriations to Japan and Korea continued after WWII was over as I explained in my previous post: "Most of the remaining 300K had been gradually repatriated between 1946 and 1950." Of course, it is up to you to snip whatever you choose but it would not change the known facts.
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-10-05 10:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by Rob
N) North and South Japan if the Soviets get to Hokkaido
More likely just annex it like Kuriles.
Most improbable. The Kuriles were thinly
inhabited, had never been settled to
speak of, and had been owned by Russia
from 1855-1905.
OK.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Hokkaido was an integral part of the
Japanese state with millions of people,
which was never ruled by Russia.
However - suppose that Japan got all
Sakhalin in the Treaty of Portsmouth,
and made a concerted effort to settle
it, so that by 1945 it has about 500K
Japanese residents. It comes under
Soviet occupation, and the USSR sets
up a People's Republic of Japan there...
Pete Barrett
2017-10-04 17:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
Malaya or Malaysia seems possible. There were communist insurgencies
_after_ independence and federation, and under other circumstances, there
might have been a partition. Malaysia is somewhat artificial, though, so
a 'partition' with Malaya on one side and Sarawak-Borneo on the other
might not fit the bill, except technically.

And of course, there is Ireland.
--
Pete BARRETT
Ned Latham
2017-10-04 20:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
Malaya or Malaysia seems possible. There were communist insurgencies
_after_ independence and federation, and under other circumstances, there
might have been a partition. Malaysia is somewhat artificial, though, so
a 'partition' with Malaya on one side and Sarawak-Borneo on the other
might not fit the bill, except technically.
And of course, there is Ireland.
Wolffan
2017-10-07 18:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
Malaya or Malaysia seems possible. There were communist insurgencies
_after_ independence and federation, and under other circumstances, there
might have been a partition. Malaysia is somewhat artificial, though, so
a 'partition' with Malaya on one side and Sarawak-Borneo on the other
might not fit the bill, except technically.
And of course, there is Ireland.
<mel gibson>You mean the Glorious Free Irish Republic and the part of Ulster
still suffering under the tyrannical English colonialist jackboot,
right?</mel gibson>
The Horny Goat
2017-10-08 01:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wolffan
<mel gibson>You mean the Glorious Free Irish Republic and the part of Ulster
still suffering under the tyrannical English colonialist jackboot,
right?</mel gibson>
I was going to mention Ireland until I realized the challenge said one
had to be communist and one capitalistic and I didn't see any scenario
making Dublin red (and even the proverbial Alien Space Bats would have
difficulty making the 6 Counties red whether still attached to London
or not)

Even if you have the Nazi wank of Hitler conquering England, Scotland
and Wales and then being defeated by an American nuclear campaign you
don't get Communists in power. (You'd be more likely to get a
post-nuclear Mad Max nightmare than a Communist regime)
Pete Barrett
2017-10-08 13:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Wolffan
<mel gibson>You mean the Glorious Free Irish Republic and the part of
Ulster still suffering under the tyrannical English colonialist
jackboot, right?</mel gibson>
I was going to mention Ireland until I realized the challenge said one
had to be communist and one capitalistic and I didn't see any scenario
making Dublin red (and even the proverbial Alien Space Bats would have
difficulty making the 6 Counties red whether still attached to London or
not)
But you wouldn't make Dublin red! The North, with its large numbers of
(almost exclusively Protestant) workers in heavy industry would be much
more likely to go communist in the 1920s (think of Red Clydeside, but in
Belfast and Derry; and with the added contingency that Northern Ireland
has its own parliament and government, unlike Scotland at the time).
--
Pete BARRETT
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-05 00:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Anyway, which additional countries could have
realistically been partitioned in a similar manner?
Specifically, I am thinking of two separate
countries where each of them considers the other one
to be an illegitimate country and government.
Italy in 1943-1944 was so partitioned.

For broad use of "realistically"...

France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".

One could also have a "Free Danish" government
in the Faeroes against a German puppet state
in the homeland.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-05 03:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:19:49 -0500, in soc.history.what-if Rich
Post by Rich Rostrom
France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia

Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Alex Milman
2017-10-05 04:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:19:49 -0500, in soc.history.what-if Rich
Post by Rich Rostrom
France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia
Well, you are mistaken: "French India and the French South Pacific colonies of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the New Hebrides joined the Free France in the summer 1940".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France#African_campaign_and_the_Empire_Defence_Council

By the end of August of 1940, all of French Equatorial Africa (including the League of Nations mandate French Cameroun) had joined Free France, with the exception of French Gabon which was taken in November by general Leclerc.

Starting from July 1941 FFF administration controlled both Syria and Lebanon and from November of 1942 Madagascar.
Post by The Horny Goat
Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Very funny... :-)
The Horny Goat
2017-10-05 17:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia
Well, you are mistaken: "French India and the French South Pacific colonies of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the New Hebrides joined the Free France in the summer 1940".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France#African_campaign_and_the_Empire_Defence_Council
By the end of August of 1940, all of French Equatorial Africa (including the League of Nations mandate French Cameroun) had joined Free France, with the exception of French Gabon which was taken in November by general Leclerc.
Starting from July 1941 FFF administration controlled both Syria and Lebanon and from November of 1942 Madagascar.
Post by The Horny Goat
Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Very funny... :-)
Thank you for the correction. I stand by my comment on de Gaulle. (Who
I happen to think would deserve to go there - but that's a different
posting.

Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period. This
would have been just after the German invasion of both Greece and
Crete.
Alex Milman
2017-10-05 19:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia
Well, you are mistaken: "French India and the French South Pacific colonies of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the New Hebrides joined the Free France in the summer 1940".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France#African_campaign_and_the_Empire_Defence_Council
By the end of August of 1940, all of French Equatorial Africa (including the League of Nations mandate French Cameroun) had joined Free France, with the exception of French Gabon which was taken in November by general Leclerc.
Starting from July 1941 FFF administration controlled both Syria and Lebanon and from November of 1942 Madagascar.
Post by The Horny Goat
Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Very funny... :-)
Thank you for the correction. I stand by my comment on de Gaulle. (Who
I happen to think would deserve to go there - but that's a different
posting.
Well, I'm anything but de Gaulle's admirer: based his memoirs he made an impression of a pompous prick and experience of his presidency confirms (IMO) that impression. However, the fact remains that he managed to position himself as a leader of the anti-Nazi France (with the competitors conveniently disappearing) and to convince/blackmail FDR & WC into accepting it. Stalin was (hopefully, I'm not mistaken) more or less OK with him. Perhaps because he did not have to deal with him on a regular basis.
Post by The Horny Goat
Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period.
I did not say that they "declared" themselves, just listed what went under FFF control and when to illustrate the growth.
Of course, FFF could not fight on its own by the reasons obvious but it seems that the Western Allies had not been seriously using the leverage they had until the crisis at Bulge when decision was up to Ike who told de Gaulle (who chose a moment to position himself as a completely independent player) that the French troops are completely dependent on the allied supplies.
Post by The Horny Goat
This
would have been just after the German invasion of both Greece and
Crete.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-05 22:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period.
I did not say that they "declared" themselves, just listed what went under FFF control and when to illustrate the growth.
Of course, FFF could not fight on its own by the reasons obvious but it seems that the Western Allies had not been seriously using the leverage they had until the crisis at Bulge when decision was up to Ike who told de Gaulle (who chose a moment to position himself as a completely independent player) that the French troops are completely dependent on the allied supplies.
Mostly true but the FFF involvement in the Liberation of Paris was
more for Anglo-American postwar relations with France than anything
resembling actual military benefit.

The troops closest to Paris at the time the decision was taken were
entirely American and maneuvering had to take place to get FFF troops
into position to go anywhere near central Paris that day.

Obviously this was mostly forgotten in the afterglow of victory most
especially by the French!

As one who was old enough to remember the consternation in Canada of
de Gaulle's trip to Canada in 1967 (ok I was 13 - but my grandfather
had run twice for Parliament so it's fair to say I was more
politically attuned than most kids my age!) I can definitely attest
that de Gaulle was adept at creating "WTH moments" for the Western
Alliance.
The Old Man
2017-10-05 22:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period.
I did not say that they "declared" themselves, just listed what went under FFF control and when to illustrate the growth.
Of course, FFF could not fight on its own by the reasons obvious but it seems that the Western Allies had not been seriously using the leverage they had until the crisis at Bulge when decision was up to Ike who told de Gaulle (who chose a moment to position himself as a completely independent player) that the French troops are completely dependent on the allied supplies.
Mostly true but the FFF involvement in the Liberation of Paris was
more for Anglo-American postwar relations with France than anything
resembling actual military benefit.
The troops closest to Paris at the time the decision was taken were
entirely American and maneuvering had to take place to get FFF troops
into position to go anywhere near central Paris that day.
Obviously this was mostly forgotten in the afterglow of victory most
especially by the French!
As one who was old enough to remember the consternation in Canada of
de Gaulle's trip to Canada in 1967 (ok I was 13 - but my grandfather
had run twice for Parliament so it's fair to say I was more
politically attuned than most kids my age!) I can definitely attest
that de Gaulle was adept at creating "WTH moments" for the Western
Alliance.
"Viva Quebec Libre!" I probably spelled that wrong, but you get the idea. I was there visiting my soon-to-be wife. He was met by blistering silence and then some scattered boos. I think (but admittedly could be wrong) that they were afraid that he wanted an independent Quebec that would somehow become a French colony.

Regards,
John Braungart
The Horny Goat
2017-10-06 18:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
"Viva Quebec Libre!" I probably spelled that wrong, but you get the idea. I was there visiting my soon-to-be wife. He was met by blistering silence and then some scattered boos. I think (but admittedly could be wrong) that they were afraid that he wanted an independent Quebec that would somehow become a French colony.
He probably did but if nothing else he wanted to cause trouble for
both Canada and the US.
Alex Milman
2017-10-07 01:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
"Viva Quebec Libre!" I probably spelled that wrong, but you get the idea. I was there visiting my soon-to-be wife. He was met by blistering silence and then some scattered boos. I think (but admittedly could be wrong) that they were afraid that he wanted an independent Quebec that would somehow become a French colony.
He probably did but if nothing else he wanted to cause trouble for
both Canada and the US.
Well, he did not have excessive love to the US.
Alex Milman
2017-10-05 23:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Syria and Iraq didn't declare for the FFF - they were imposed after a
British invasion against Rashid Ali which took most of May 1941 and
which delayed operations in North Africa for most of that period.
I did not say that they "declared" themselves, just listed what went under FFF control and when to illustrate the growth.
Of course, FFF could not fight on its own by the reasons obvious but it seems that the Western Allies had not been seriously using the leverage they had until the crisis at Bulge when decision was up to Ike who told de Gaulle (who chose a moment to position himself as a completely independent player) that the French troops are completely dependent on the allied supplies.
Mostly true but the FFF involvement in the Liberation of Paris was
more for Anglo-American postwar relations with France than anything
resembling actual military benefit.
What this has to do with the Bulge and de Gaulle - Ike exchange?


Of course, liberation of Paris by the French troops was a political gesture than a military necessity.
Post by The Horny Goat
The troops closest to Paris at the time the decision was taken were
entirely American and maneuvering had to take place to get FFF troops
into position to go anywhere near central Paris that day.
Obviously this was mostly forgotten in the afterglow of victory most
especially by the French!
As one who was old enough to remember the consternation in Canada of
de Gaulle's trip to Canada in 1967 (ok I was 13 - but my grandfather
had run twice for Parliament so it's fair to say I was more
politically attuned than most kids my age!) I can definitely attest
that de Gaulle was adept at creating "WTH moments" for the Western
Alliance.
Well, yes, he was and it was up to FDR & WC to swallow his BS. I wonder what was REAL importance (in practical terms) of his address to the French on D Day. Anyway, he managed to position France as one of the main partners in the alliance with its own zone of occupation and presence on surrender ceremony (allegedly, Keitel was surprised: “What, the French are here, too?” :-)).
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-10-06 03:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:19:49 -0500, in soc.history.what-if Rich
Post by Rich Rostrom
France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that immediately declared
for the Free French was New Caledonia
C
Post by The Horny Goat
Good luck to Churchill and FDR if they had tried to force de Gaulle
there.....
Rich Rostrom
2017-10-06 15:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rich Rostrom
France, in a TL where Nazi Germany survives with
Vichy France as a semi-sovereign satellite state,
while Algeria and Corsica become "Free France".
As far as I know the ONLY French territory that
immediately declared for the Free French was New
Caledonia...
Who said anything about OTL "Free France"?

A "France Fights On" TL, where the Third Republic
leadership relocates to North Africa, could have
this result. (IMO, more plausibly than OTL after
1940.)

I mention Algeria and Corsica because they were
(Corsica is) part of "Metropolitan France"; thus
the _country_, rather than the colonial empire,
is partitioned.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Insane Ranter
2017-10-06 03:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Split Cuba one side Capitalist and the other Communist.

Cyprus?
The Horny Goat
2017-10-07 00:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Insane Ranter
Post by Insane Ranter
Split Cuba one side Capitalist and the other Communist.
Cyprus?
That's an interesting idea though how are you going to do that? Do the
Greek Communists win their civil war?
s***@yahoo.com
2017-10-10 17:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
of churchill landings in the balkans, a german general said "it would be the biggest prison camp ever, and we wouldn't even need to feed them."

Nils
The Horny Goat
2017-10-10 19:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
of churchill landings in the balkans, a german general said "it would be the biggest prison camp ever, and we wouldn't even need to feed them."
That's exactly what one of the senior British naval officers said
about Sealion....

(the obvious implication being that before an invasion the Royal Navy
couldn't cover the entire British shoreline, after an invasion the
Royal Navy could do a much better job interdicting the 10-15 mile
lodgement since they wouldn't have to cover the other 1000+ mile
coastline any more thus making the Royal Navy's job MUCH easier)
David Tenner
2017-10-16 02:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
One possibility (though I doubt the partition would last long) is Russia
itself...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/russia-partitioned-the-lenin-bullitt-agreeement-of-march-1919.356184/


BTW, after 1972 and the Basic Treaty the FRG and GDR recognized each other,
so I'm not sure you could say that *legally* each considered the other to be
illegitimate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Treaty,_1972

(Morally is another matter, of course.)
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-16 04:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by WolfBear
In our TL, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and China (in relation to Taiwan)
were partitioned into a capitalist country and a Communist country.
Anyway, which additional countries could have realistically been
partitioned in a similar manner? Specifically, I am thinking of two
separate countries where each of them considers the other one to be an
illegitimate country and government.
One possibility (though I doubt the partition would last long) is Russia
itself...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/russia-partitioned-the-lenin-bullitt-agreeement-of-march-1919.356184/
Very detailed, as usual, but IMO, this would be impractical (BTW, how comes that in 1919 Bolsheviks are in possession of Riga and Vilno?)

Now:
'Ilya Somin has argued that *if* the Allies would say to the Soviets, "OK, we'll adhere to the Lenin-Bullitt agreement but if you violate it by sending troops into the territory of the non-Bolshevik governments, we will resume our military aid to them" the agreement might indeed have "worked" in the sense that the Soviet government would reluctantly have been forced to comply with it, and that this would lead to a long-term partition of Russia'

I noticed that you are quoting Somin on a regular basis. Perhaps I missed some good ones but so far most of his quoted opinions that I saw produce impression of him being (to put it mildly) somewhat disconnected from a reality.

Quote above is one more example. What "military aid"? The problem of the White movements was shortage of the cadres and, in the case of Kolchak, inability to keep government going without alienating the peasants and workers of Siberia while, in the case of Denikin, inability to create any serious semblance of a functioning government (see memoirs of Peter Wrangel).

Sending weapons would mean little if there are no soldiers (in the case of Kolchak) or if there are no reserves to compensate for the losses (pretty much the case with Denikin). Yudenich was from the very beginning in pretty much hopeless situation operating from Estonia.

An idea that Lenin & Co would comply is "ignorance of the habits and people which you can find only among the innocent girls" (A.K.Tolstoy). :-)

It was absolutely clear that as soon as they are out, the allies will have serious problems with political will at home to get involved again on any serious level. Then comes an issue of the Russian debt. Why would the Bolsheviks agree to pay any part of it if (a) they had no money and (b) if they came with a perfect excuse for not paying it? What would be "proportion" of the debt for each agreeing party including, as I understand, the "exotic" ones like the Ural Cossacks? Actually, territory shown as held by the Volunteer Army also includes the Republic of Don with its own government and troops (fighting along the Volunteer Army but only for as long as it suited them). How to separate them (if at all) and how to assign percentages of a debt? And how would they pay it if their assigned area is hardly self-sustainable?

'The guaranteeing of unhindered transit for the Soviet government on all railways and through all ports in Russia'. Now, who would believe THAT and who would enforce this condition? I can imagine 'unhindered' transit of the Bolsheviks through Kolchak-held territories or even a much shorter one through the Don area. Probably the total distance would not matter too much: they would be executed on the 1st station (optimistically).

'A mutual general amnesty of political opponents and prisoners' - was this in a reality? Yes, as you remarked, Bullitt was hardly the best person for the task. Actually, this projects image of a complete nincompoop absolutely unfamiliar with the situation.


I have very serious doubts that Kolchak or Denikin would start serious talks with the Bolsheviks. BTW, what about Kolchak's status of "supreme ruler of Russia"?
David Tenner
2017-10-16 07:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
I noticed that you are quoting Somin on a regular basis. Perhaps I
missed some good ones but so far most of his quoted opinions that I saw
produce impression of him being (to put it mildly) somewhat disconnected
from a reality.
Well, I did quote Somin, but only because AFAIK he is the only person to
argue that the agreement might hace worked if backed up with a credible
threat of military aid (I don't have his book here and it's not clear to me
if he includes the actual sending of troops under "military aid") in the
event of the inevitable Bolshevik attempts to violate it. I go on to quote
the contrary argument of Richard K. Debo in his analysis of the agreement at
p. 48 of his *Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet
Russia, 1918-1921* that even without Red Army invasions, the agreement would
doom the non-Bolshevik governments:

"The Bolsheviks were, in fact, offering a great deal for peace, but not
nearly as much as it might first appear. Their proposal was a document of
political genius, yet one more example of the 'rotten compromise' for which
Lenin was so justly famous. It might just as well have been headed 'A Charter
to Bolshevize Russia.' Adoption, in whole or in part, would almost surely
have led to the collapse of the anti-Soviet governments even more rapidly
than was actually to take place. No one, least of all themselves, believed
that they could long exist without foreign assistance. The proposed agreement
purported to secure them against the Soviet government and the Red Army. Even
if it had, nothing protected them from the Bolshevik party, deeply rooted and
active, in all the territories of the former Russian empire. Invigorated by
the proposed amnesty, reinforced by added cadres from Soviet Russia, and
aided by the instant demoralization which would have swept through the anti-
Bolshevik forces once the Soviet government had received some form of Allied
recognition, local Bolshevik organizations would have made fast work of the
bogus regimes they confronted. When the inevitable came, it would fall well
within the agreement for, of course, it provided that no existing de facto
governments were to be altered until such time as the peoples inhabiting
their territories 'shall themselves determine to change their governments.'
This was self-determination Bolshevik-style with a vengeance.."
http://books.google.com/books?id=gQfUB0CXBO4C&pg=PA48

This certainly was Lenin's own judgment: "When, a year ago, we proposed to
Bullitt a treaty which was extremely favourable to them and extremely
unfavourable to us, a treaty that would have left huge territories in the
hands of Denikin and Kolchak, we did so in the certainty that, if peace were
concluded, the whiteguard government would never be able to retain power..."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/20b.htm
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Alex Milman
2017-10-16 15:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Post by Alex Milman
I noticed that you are quoting Somin on a regular basis. Perhaps I
missed some good ones but so far most of his quoted opinions that I saw
produce impression of him being (to put it mildly) somewhat disconnected
from a reality.
Well, I did quote Somin, but only because AFAIK he is the only person to
argue that the agreement might hace worked if backed up with a credible
threat of military aid (I don't have his book here and it's not clear to me
if he includes the actual sending of troops under "military aid") in the
event of the inevitable Bolshevik attempts to violate it.
[Don't get my criticism of Somin as a personal criticism of you]

So basically you are quoting him because he is the only one who was foolish enough to think that Bullett's ideas were practical? That makes sense. :-)

Of course, the main point which makes his belief impractical is "a credible threat of military aid" because after the foreign troops are withdrawn it would be very difficult if not impossible to send them back to Russia again. Starting from a possible nonexistence of the troops to send (due to a demobilization) and then expenses related to such an expedition, absence of a political will and even a time needed for such an endeavor in a time of peace. By the time the troops are arriving (if they arrive at all) it is too late.

Sending just weapons does not help too much if there are no troops and, with a demobilization required for all participants, there are practically no troops on White sides.

Then of course go the issues of the "White territories". One allocated for the Volunteer Army (actually both them AND the Don Cossacks who were at least formally a separate entity) is not self-sustainable economically and easy to crush especially if a big part of the Volunteer Army is disbanded. BTW, what all these people would be doing? Unlike OTL France the area did not need too many taxi drivers or restaurant waiters so where and how all these professional military are going to be employed?

This, of course, would be only a tip of an iceberg.
Post by David Tenner
I go on to quote
the contrary argument of Richard K. Debo in his analysis of the agreement
The only surprising thing is that any serious person (the present company excluding :-)) would bother to even criticize that pile of a nonsense except for a pure entertainment.
Post by David Tenner
at
p. 48 of his *Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet
Russia, 1918-1921* that even without Red Army invasions, the agreement would
"The Bolsheviks were, in fact, offering a great deal for peace, but not
nearly as much as it might first appear. Their proposal was a document of
political genius, yet one more example of the 'rotten compromise' for which
Lenin was so justly famous.
Well put. He was ready for the compromises when being sure that there are ways to circumvent the restrictions like generously "giving" Germany Ukraine over which his government did not have a control and then creating "independent" Ukrainian Bolshevik republic with its own (rather colorful) army. Or playing a very interesting games around Supreme Military Council to retain Party (aka, his own) control over this seemingly all-powerful entity.
Post by David Tenner
It might just as well have been headed 'A Charter
to Bolshevize Russia.' Adoption, in whole or in part, would almost surely
have led to the collapse of the anti-Soviet governments even more rapidly
than was actually to take place. No one, least of all themselves, believed
that they could long exist without foreign assistance.
Yes, none of the White movements managed to create administrative infrastructure capable of making it a true state. If there was some chance in Siberia it was gone with Kolchak's coup.
Post by David Tenner
The proposed agreement
purported to secure them against the Soviet government and the Red Army. Even
if it had, nothing protected them from the Bolshevik party, deeply rooted and
active, in all the territories of the former Russian empire.
Invigorated by
the proposed amnesty, reinforced by added cadres from Soviet Russia, and
aided by the instant demoralization which would have swept through the anti-
Bolshevik forces once the Soviet government had received some form of Allied
recognition, local Bolshevik organizations would have made fast work of the
bogus regimes they confronted. When the inevitable came, it would fall well
within the agreement for, of course, it provided that no existing de facto
governments were to be altered until such time as the peoples inhabiting
their territories 'shall themselves determine to change their governments.'
This was self-determination Bolshevik-style with a vengeance.."
http://books.google.com/books?id=gQfUB0CXBO4C&pg=PA48
Very well formulated and exactly to the point. Should be quite obvious to anybody with at least marginal understanding of the situation (which is clearly not the case with Somin).
Post by David Tenner
This certainly was Lenin's own judgment: "When, a year ago, we proposed to
Bullitt a treaty which was extremely favourable to them and extremely
unfavourable to us, a treaty that would have left huge territories in the
hands of Denikin and Kolchak, we did so in the certainty that, if peace were
concluded, the whiteguard government would never be able to retain power..."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/20b.htm
Lenin was a brilliant short-/mid-term planner and him looking for a sucker like Bullitt was an nice try to get a lot for nothing. Of course, his expectations that the figures more serious are going to swallow the bite was somewhat optimistic but, according to the Russian proverb, "an attempt is not a torture".
s***@yahoo.com
2017-10-30 01:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A bit more abut Patton, I have on good authority, he looked and sounded like the cartoon character Elmer Fudd. He may have been a media-darling in the war, but as soon as we get into TV that will change.

Also, actual US fighting men didn't like him. When some enthusiasts refers to "ol' blood & guts Patton" soldiers I knew would respond "that's our blood". Then there is the booze in the night incident, I got second hand. A private was kicked out of his tent in the middle of the night to go hunt up booze for Patton. You don't do that. It's leutenants you kick out of bed for personal officer stuff.

Nils K. Hammer
Alex Milman
2017-10-30 17:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
A bit more abut Patton, I have on good authority, he looked and sounded like the cartoon character Elmer Fudd. He may have been a media-darling in the war, but as soon as we get into TV that will change.
Well, he had been media darling from time to time but every time this popularity was ending with a flop of his own doing. Slapping incident, interview in which he said that the world will be divided between the Us and Britain, the final masterpiece of saying that the Nazi were just a political party like the Democrats and Republicans. For how long such an idiot would survive on a political arena?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Also, actual US fighting men didn't like him. When some enthusiasts refers to "ol' blood & guts Patton" soldiers I knew would respond "that's our blood". Then there is the booze in the night incident, I got second hand. A private was kicked out of his tent in the middle of the night to go hunt up booze for Patton. You don't do that. It's leutenants you kick out of bed for personal officer stuff.
Even without that, why would the soldiers start liking a general who forces them to do what any normal soldier does not like too much, spit and polish (surely, there can be more pleasant things to do in your spare time)? Or his obsession with everyone being uniformed "properly" all the way to a complete absurdity?

Not that he was excessively liked by his peers and superiors. In his 1st book Bradley described him with a mild humor but in the 2nd, irritation is clearly visible and somehow I don't think that his fellow American army commanders were excessively fond of his comments that they are doing nothing (see Patton's "War as I knew it"). With the Brits things were obviously worse.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-30 19:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by s***@yahoo.com
A bit more abut Patton, I have on good authority, he looked and sounded like the cartoon character Elmer Fudd. He may have been a media-darling in the war, but as soon as we get into TV that will change.
Well, he had been media darling from time to time but every time this popularity was ending with a flop of his own doing. Slapping incident, interview in which he said that the world will be divided between the Us and Britain, the final masterpiece of saying that the Nazi were just a political party like the Democrats and Republicans. For how long such an idiot would survive on a political arena?
There are sound recordings of Patton you can download - he clearly
DIDN'T sound like Elmer Fudd.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Also, actual US fighting men didn't like him. When some enthusiasts refers to "ol' blood & guts Patton" soldiers I knew would respond "that's our blood". Then there is the booze in the night incident, I got second hand. A private was kicked out of his tent in the middle of the night to go hunt up booze for Patton. You don't do that. It's leutenants you kick out of bed for personal officer stuff.
On the other hand his quote about 'the purpose of war is NOT to die
for your country - it's to make the other poor dumb bastard die for
HIS country" was also well circulated. That's NOT a George C Scott
quote!
Post by Alex Milman
Even without that, why would the soldiers start liking a general who forces them to do what any normal soldier does not like too much, spit and polish (surely, there can be more pleasant things to do in your spare time)? Or his obsession with everyone being uniformed "properly" all the way to a complete absurdity?
Not that he was excessively liked by his peers and superiors. In his 1st book Bradley described him with a mild humor but in the 2nd, irritation is clearly visible and somehow I don't think that his fellow American army commanders were excessively fond of his comments that they are doing nothing (see Patton's "War as I knew it"). With the Brits things were obviously worse.
Patton was perceived by his peers - probably correctly - as a glory
hound. That generally means acquiring some one else's glory which is
never popular.
Alex Milman
2017-10-30 20:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by s***@yahoo.com
A bit more abut Patton, I have on good authority, he looked and sounded like the cartoon character Elmer Fudd. He may have been a media-darling in the war, but as soon as we get into TV that will change.
Well, he had been media darling from time to time but every time this popularity was ending with a flop of his own doing. Slapping incident, interview in which he said that the world will be divided between the Us and Britain, the final masterpiece of saying that the Nazi were just a political party like the Democrats and Republicans. For how long such an idiot would survive on a political arena?
There are sound recordings of Patton you can download - he clearly
DIDN'T sound like Elmer Fudd.
_I_ did not comment on the subject - have no idea who that Elmer Fudd was.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Also, actual US fighting men didn't like him. When some enthusiasts refers to "ol' blood & guts Patton" soldiers I knew would respond "that's our blood". Then there is the booze in the night incident, I got second hand. A private was kicked out of his tent in the middle of the night to go hunt up booze for Patton. You don't do that. It's leutenants you kick out of bed for personal officer stuff.
On the other hand his quote about 'the purpose of war is NOT to die
for your country - it's to make the other poor dumb bastard die for
HIS country" was also well circulated. That's NOT a George C Scott
quote!
Again, not me. :-)

However, I'd venture to guess that most of the soldiers figured this wisdom out without being told by Patton.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Even without that, why would the soldiers start liking a general who forces them to do what any normal soldier does not like too much, spit and polish (surely, there can be more pleasant things to do in your spare time)? Or his obsession with everyone being uniformed "properly" all the way to a complete absurdity?
Not that he was excessively liked by his peers and superiors. In his 1st book Bradley described him with a mild humor but in the 2nd, irritation is clearly visible and somehow I don't think that his fellow American army commanders were excessively fond of his comments that they are doing nothing (see Patton's "War as I knew it"). With the Brits things were obviously worse.
Patton was perceived by his peers - probably correctly - as a glory
hound.
And quite annoying one (as far as his immediate superior was involved).
Post by The Horny Goat
That generally means acquiring some one else's glory which is
never popular.
Indeed.
The Horny Goat
2017-10-31 00:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Well, he had been media darling from time to time but every time this popularity was ending with a flop of his own doing. Slapping incident, interview in which he said that the world will be divided between the Us and Britain, the final masterpiece of saying that the Nazi were just a political party like the Democrats and Republicans. For how long such an idiot would survive on a political arena?
There are sound recordings of Patton you can download - he clearly
DIDN'T sound like Elmer Fudd.
_I_ did not comment on the subject - have no idea who that Elmer Fudd was.
Seriously? He's a cartoon character out of the same studio that gave
us Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and so forth. He has a distinctive voice
with strong lisp and parodies the American "redneck'

- for a good example
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Also, actual US fighting men didn't like him. When some enthusiasts refers to "ol' blood & guts Patton" soldiers I knew would respond "that's our blood". Then there is the booze in the night incident, I got second hand. A private was kicked out of his tent in the middle of the night to go hunt up booze for Patton. You don't do that. It's leutenants you kick out of bed for personal officer stuff.
On the other hand his quote about 'the purpose of war is NOT to die
for your country - it's to make the other poor dumb bastard die for
HIS country" was also well circulated. That's NOT a George C Scott
quote!
Again, not me. :-)
However, I'd venture to guess that most of the soldiers figured this wisdom out without being told by Patton.
If you have not seen Scott's Patton it would be worth your while.
Apparently Patton's widow said it was quite faithful to her husband's
memory. Its a toss-up as to whether the Patton role or his role in Dr
Strangelove was Scott's best role - though the two are completely
different genres and both are worth your while.
Alex Milman
2017-10-31 17:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Well, he had been media darling from time to time but every time this popularity was ending with a flop of his own doing. Slapping incident, interview in which he said that the world will be divided between the Us and Britain, the final masterpiece of saying that the Nazi were just a political party like the Democrats and Republicans. For how long such an idiot would survive on a political arena?
There are sound recordings of Patton you can download - he clearly
DIDN'T sound like Elmer Fudd.
_I_ did not comment on the subject - have no idea who that Elmer Fudd was.
Seriously? He's a cartoon character out of the same studio that gave
us Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and so forth. He has a distinctive voice
with strong lisp and parodies the American "redneck'
http://youtu.be/WzdxeBTm6gk - for a good example
Keep in mind that I came to the US at the age of 40, a little bit too late for the cartoons. :-(
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Also, actual US fighting men didn't like him. When some enthusiasts refers to "ol' blood & guts Patton" soldiers I knew would respond "that's our blood". Then there is the booze in the night incident, I got second hand. A private was kicked out of his tent in the middle of the night to go hunt up booze for Patton. You don't do that. It's leutenants you kick out of bed for personal officer stuff.
On the other hand his quote about 'the purpose of war is NOT to die
for your country - it's to make the other poor dumb bastard die for
HIS country" was also well circulated. That's NOT a George C Scott
quote!
Again, not me. :-)
However, I'd venture to guess that most of the soldiers figured this wisdom out without being told by Patton.
If you have not seen Scott's Patton it would be worth your while.
Of course, I saw it more than once. Great acting.
Post by The Horny Goat
Apparently Patton's widow said it was quite faithful to her husband's
memory.
Of course, it is the most complimentary portrayal of Patton one can imagine without being a completely divorced from a reality. So why would she complain?
Of course, the movie completely skips his kissing Ike's butt, makes Monty into a caricature and ignores some other things but it is a movie, not a history manual.
Post by The Horny Goat
Its a toss-up as to whether the Patton role or his role in Dr
Strangelove was Scott's best role - though the two are completely
different genres and both are worth your while.
Saw that one as well and he is great in it.

s***@yahoo.com
2017-10-31 05:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well I see Patton is an important subject. Mr Millman is a respectable expert, who reminds me of another factoid. A WWII soldier told me that the Germans looked good, so Patton demanded that US soldiers wear the attractive brown jacket insetead of fatigues.

As for Pattons agressiveness, some online discussion taught me that Patton used his recon, especially light aircraft, to locate allied fuel sources and steal them.

Nils
Loading...