i just refuse you believe you don’t understand what a proxy war is

"hey you should donate some of that cashola that you made from spreading this lie instead of waiting for people to applaud you for admitting you were a liar." --Scaachi


A+ reply

the fact that your sole point of contention right now is the application of a semantic label indicates to me that we're probably done here

so are you saying you don’t know what it means or that you do know and were just openly lying itt?

seems like whichever the answer it kind of disqualifies any analysis you have to offer

like why do we care what someone who couldn’t pass a middle school history class thinks?

we?

your statement was founded on numerous factual inaccuracies

whether I correctly* applied the term "proxy war" has nothing to do with those inaccuracies


by fixating on this largely irrelevant point, and then doubling (tripling?) down, you are essentially conceding that your analysis is based on faulty premises - and thus, perhaps, "disqualified"?

it’s a simple question IANAW

did you no know what a proxy war is

or were you lying?

by the first definition there, not a proxy war

by the second, maybe

regardless, whether the label is applicable or not has nothing to do with your tankie revisionism

anticipating another semantic retort, it looks like "revisionism" is too generous a term



your account of history is just false

Ok so you are going “i didn’t know what i meant” i guess?

like I said, I have trouble believing that and think it is more likely you are lying as you so often do

Winners write the history. Once we erase all the stuff we don’t like a new history will be written.

Since you love wikipedia so much, IANAW:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloto...ibbentrop_Pact

There are just so many errors in your response post I don't have the energy to go fix them all. And I know you are just doing it because you get your kicks trying to "show up birdman" itt or something. If that's what you want to go have at it hoss, but you can understand why I don't really care about treating your post as if it was written in good faith.

It began during the First World War, with the February Revolution that was focused in and around Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg), the capital of Russia at that time. The revolution erupted in the context of Russia's major military losses during the War, which resulted in much of the Russian Army being ready to mutiny.

The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution, and Emperor Nicholas II abdicated his throne.

While the nation was initially engaged in a wave of nationalism, increasing numbers of defeats and poor conditions soon flipped the nation's opinion. The Tsar attempted to remedy the situation by taking personal control of the army in 1915. This proved to be extremely disadvantageous for the Tsar, as he was now held personally responsible for Russia's continuing defeats and losses.

The conditions during the war resulted in a devastating loss of morale within the Russian army and the general population of Russia itself.

Russia's first major battle of the war was a disaster; in the 1914 Battle of Tannenberg, over 30,000 Russian troops were killed or wounded and 90,000 captured, while Germany suffered just 12,000 casualties.

In 1915, things took a critical turn for the worse when Germany shifted its focus of attack to the Eastern front. The superior German army – better led, better trained, and better supplied – was quite effective against the ill-equipped Russian forces, driving the Russians out of Galicia, as well as Russian Poland during the Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive campaign. By the end of October 1916, Russia had lost between 1,600,000 and 1,800,000 soldiers, with an additional 2,000,000 prisoners of war and 1,000,000 missing, all making up a total of nearly 5,000,000 men.

These staggering losses played a definite role in the mutinies and revolts that began to occur. In 1916, reports of fraternizing with the enemy began to circulate. Soldiers went hungry, lacked shoes, munitions, and even weapons. Rampant discontent lowered morale, which was further undermined by a series of military defeats.

Casualty rates were the most vivid sign of this disaster. By the end of 1914, only five months into the war, around 390,000 Russian men had lost their lives and nearly 1,000,000 were injured. Far sooner than expected, inadequately trained recruits were called for active duty, a process repeated throughout the war as staggering losses continued to mount. The officer class also saw remarkable changes, especially within the lower echelons, which were quickly filled with soldiers rising up through the ranks. These men, usually of peasant or working-class backgrounds, were to play a large role in the politicization of the troops in 1917.

The army quickly ran short of rifles and ammunition (as well as uniforms and food), and by mid-1915, men were being sent to the front bearing no arms. It was hoped that they could equip themselves with arms recovered from fallen soldiers, of both sides, on the battlefields. The soldiers did not feel as if they were valuable, rather they felt as if they were expendable.

By the spring of 1915, the army was in steady retreat, which was not always orderly; desertion, plundering, and chaotic flight were not uncommon.

Nevertheless, by the end of 1916, morale among soldiers was even worse than it had been during the great retreat of 1915. The fortunes of war may have improved, but the fact of war remained which continually took Russian lives. The crisis in morale (as was argued by Allan Wildman, a leading historian of the Russian army in war and revolution) "was rooted fundamentally in the feeling of utter despair that the slaughter would ever end and that anything resembling victory could be achieved."

The war did not only devastate soldiers. By the end of 1915, there were manifold signs that the economy was breaking down under the heightened strain of wartime demand. The main problems were food shortages and rising prices. Inflation dragged incomes down at an alarmingly rapid rate, and shortages made it difficult for an individual to sustain oneself.

Again, you are either a liar or you just don't have any idea what you are talking about. Either way no one should listen to you.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/t...s-1275885.html

https://www.amazon.com/Conjuring-Hit.../dp/074532181X

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/t...s-1275885.html

https://nationalpost.com/news/how-si...nother-country

Brusilov Offensive, June-September 1916 - Russia takes present-day Ukraine from Austro-Hungary

February 1917 - revolution causes Russia to withdraw

---


from that wikipedia article (Russian Revolution) - "The fortunes of war may have improved, but the fact of war remained which continually took Russian lives."



Your argument was that Russia's military was in shambles in the 1930's, due to WW1 losses, and thus Stalin had to appease Hitler.

Instead, it looks like, after deeper investigation, Russian army morale was low in 1916 despite territorial gain, due to lack of faith in the regime. Yet, post-Lenin, mid-Stalin, wouldn't the spirit of communism have propelled the People's Army into a completely different posture?

dude, a few british bankers and an american industrialist profiting off of Hitler doesn't establish that "the Western Powers" supported him

ianaw is speaking normally

birdman is arguing semantics and still not admitting he is wrong about anything

and birdman asks if I am okay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied...sian_Civil_War

Had you literally not heard of this?

The Bush's were pretty much nazis. IBM was doing work there. There were factories that were off limits for bombing.
We've had this discussion before. Not sure what the arguments are because just checking in here, but wwii was definitely two sides of the same coin.

Talking to you it is just quite clear you are using knowledge based on a half remembered skim of world history cliff notes