Scholar?, pseudo-scholar?, a troll
J Antero
news:hfnk6i$tjk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>J Antero wrote:
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>> news:hfkv29$50g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hfi7tt$o2h$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hf12lp$7nj$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:hev2tc$s83$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:het647$hja$7...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> J Antero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing new or true
>>>>>>>>>> It's all true and it's the liar who constantly needs something
>>>>>>>>>> "new'.
>>>>>>>>> More nonsense from Anturdo.
>>>>>>>> Said like the type of "scholar" you are.
>>>>>>> Indeed, one of the many services scholars like me provide is
>>>>>>> pointing
>>>>>>> out the historical errors of nut cases like you and setting the
>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>> straight. As usual, you read something on the net that you took as
>>>>>>> fact and are now trying desperately to defend yourself.
>>>>>> You're no scholar.
>>>>> Well, considering that you're the one who cited Dan Brown rather than
>>>>> Ramsay MacMullen
>>>> Weasel/Swine is showing the signs of stress....
>>>>
>>>> I "cited" the well known scholar Ramsay MacMullen to show you don't
>>>> know
>>>> what you are talking about.
>>> Not in your original OP you certainly didn't. It took you days to look
>>> at
>>> MacMullen, a book you claim to have read and is on your shelf, and even
>>> when you did, you couldn't provide anything that supported any of your
>>> contentions.
>>>
>>>> I also proved I owned the MacMullen book after you stupidly claimed I
>>>> didn't.
>>
>>> No you didn't. You at best took a picture of a book on a shelf, that
>>> doesn't prove you own it, and as pointed out several times before, the
>>> issue wasn't your ownership but WHETHER YOU READ IT! You've already
>>> shown
>>> clearly in this thread that you haven't.
>>
>> You're cowering behind phony issues.
>
> No, that was the issue, you illiterate muck raker.
The only "muck" I rake is to show that you are an ignorant brainless
troll...
For yet another example of you being an ignorant brainless troll... read
on...
Readers - I hope you'll take a moment to pay attention to what I post below,
becasue it's revealing of the scrambled mind of this troll.
And, he has had a year for the illogic of wht he's claiming to occurr to
him...
The troll's mental processes are so poor, that he doesn't understand that
being able to answer the type of questions he was asking about the book
under discussion, tests only whether somebody can put their hands on a
particular book, not whether they have read it.
Antero: >> WeaselTURD tried to pretend a year ago that I did'nt own a
particiular book
Weland/swain; > READ!!! READ!!! READ!!!! I SAID YOU HADN'T READ THE
BOOK!!! I EVEN
> PASTED THE URL INTO A POST TO THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE JUST FOR TO SEE!!! IT
> SAYS READ!!!!! R E A D Are you so thick that you don't know that
> R E A D is *NOT* OWN?? Apparently so.
>
> Here again is the original post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.medieval/msg/8f7aa66cd566f84c?dmode=source
You accuse other people of not "reading", then post a reference to a post
that makes it clear you DID NOT READ your own words in the post yourself
(LOL).
Below is a clip from the above link *you posted* that clearly shows:
YOU WERE INDEED REFERING TO WHETHER I OWNED THE MACMULLEN BOOK, AND COULD
PUT MY HANDS ON IT TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS ON PARTICULAR
PAGES.
Anyone could read any book any number of times, and not be able to answer
"what's on page X" type questions UNLESS THEY HAD IT ON HAND, AS YOU WERE
CLAIMING I DID NOT.
From that linked post above that you clearly didn't READ, you pathetic
stupid ass:
Swain wrote on Jan.12, 2009 post, re. the Ramsay MacMullen book
"Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eigth Centuries".
********
Swain: " You pointed to _Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth
Centuries_. So tells us about page 122, how many paragraphs are there?
Quote the first two
sentences of the first paragraph that begins on that page. Tell us what
the is the entry in the index after "ascetics (pagan)". "
********
Rather than jump through his hoops, in reponse that day, I quickly posted a
photo of the book, which I had had in my library for several years, with a
note on it mocking this pathetic troll. I uploaded it to a binary group and
the troll responded that he never went to binary groups so he couldn't
verify it.
He was trying to pretend that I only got things off the internet, couldn't
have read this fairly hard-to-find scholarly book, that I didn't have
physical access to it, and he would prove that by asking the specific
questions he did.
What a pathetic troll clown. That was over a year ago, and the illogic of
his argument still elludes this moronic troll.
Apparently his mental processes are so poor, that he doesn't understand that
being able to answer the type of questions he was asking, tests only whether
somebody can put their hands on a particular book, not whether they have
read it.
Incredibly, the implications of the fact that I was competently referencing
the book,
and posting cited passages from it, escapes his malfunctiong mind, as to
whether I had read it or not..
Let's see if he can understand the stupidity of what he has posted (the
proper response would be to just shut up) - my bet is he won't , even after
it has been spelled out for him.
Incredible - but also HI LARRRRRYY OUS.....
It gets better and better!
< SNIP FURTHER HI LARRRRRYY OUS FLAILINGS. >
Brian M. Scott
wrote in
<news:hsednfWP8pKcCL3W...@earthlink.com> in
soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> Readers - I hope you'll take a moment to pay attention to
> what I post below, becasue it's revealing of the
> scrambled mind of this troll.
At this point you're both acting like ten-year-olds at best,
but when the discussion actually had some substance, Larry
ran rings around you. You're playing out of your league,
and he's wasting time and electrons responding to you.
[...]
igor
Dumbero, stop wasting bandwith, el pollo loco.
Weland
Thank you both. All I needed to know was that I was getting through to
someone somewhere. Stopping now.
Weland
pretty much everything you post.
You conveniently snipped of course the preceding. I've supplied it in
full for you:
"So here's a little test for you, prove to us that you've actually read
the book you cited instead of read about the book. You pointed to
_Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries_. So tells
us about page 122, how many paragraphs are there? Quote the first two
sentences of the first paragraph that begins on that page. Tell us what
the is the entry in the index after "ascetics (pagan)".
Note that the test, the request that you provide the number of
paragraphs, the information about page 122, the entry in the index, was
about "prove to us that you've actually *READ* the book...."
So I repeat:
"READ!!! READ!!! READ!!!! I SAID YOU HADN'T READ THE > BOOK!!! I EVEN
>> PASTED THE URL INTO A POST TO THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE JUST FOR TO
SEE!!! IT >> SAYS READ!!!!! R E A D Are you so thick that you
don't know that >> R E A D is *NOT* OWN?? Apparently so."ad
This whole post is a clear exercise on your part and it is evidence of
your inability to comprehend anything beyond a second grade level.
>
> Rather than jump through his hoops, in reponse that day, I quickly posted a
> photo of the book, which I had had in my library for several years, with a
> note on it mocking this pathetic troll. I uploaded it to a binary group and
> the troll responded that he never went to binary groups so he couldn't
> verify it.
Which of course doesn't prove you owned it since you could have gotten
the photo anywhere, and more importantly it certainly doesn't show, if
you really posted the photo, that you *READ* the book.
> He was trying to pretend that I only got things off the internet,
So far, there still isn't any evidence that you don't. Else why would
you plagiarize a novel you had characterized as mangled history to prove
a point rather than a scholar whose book you claim was in your library
for years and whose title is Christianity and Paganism.....the only
explanation other than sheer stupidity is that you hadn't read the
latter but had the former.
couldn't
> have read this fairly hard-to-find scholarly book,
It's published by Yale University Press and has been in print since
1997, it's still in print and is readily available at YUP, Amazon,
Barnes and Noble, Blackwells, and other sources. What's hard to find
about that?
I've snipped the rest of the nonsense.
Congratulations!! You've proven my points about you all the while
feeling so self righteous....how funny!
igor
The fruit picking season is over, what is this cavron still doing here?
J Antero
"igor" <inbel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a8162c9-278a-449b...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
== The fruit picking season is over, what is this cavron still doing here?==
Ibor the stupid. A better question is what is marico like you doing here?
Haven't you been shown up enough?
J Antero
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:15ivzw3umcbfk.1onwmr69bdnv2$.dlg@40tude.net...
So you say...
I don't think the content of the argument(s) shows me being run around, at
all.
I've maintained that "Secret Mark" is an unsettled issue, and I've posted
reliable cites from actual scholars who support that.
I've maintianed that early christianity borrowed customs, holidays and
ideas from pre-existing myths and religions, and I've supplied reliable
cites from actual scholars who support that.
In this latest post, I've merely pointed out that I was challenged to prove
that I owned and had on hand a particular book, and that I did that a year
ago, and I've done it again, recently.
. The person who wanted the proof, then pretended I was supposed to prove I
had "read" it instead,,, or something. Who knows...
> [...]
>
J Antero
Moron, as I said before, describing what's on a particular page of a book
tests whether someone *has* the book, not whether they have read it.
> Note that the test, the request that you provide the number of
> paragraphs, the information about page 122, the entry in the index, was
> about "prove to us that you've actually *READ* the book...."
Of course I read it, and have referenced it in numerous posts, and posted
cited passages from it.
Even when the stupidity of your desparate flailing is pointed out to you,
you still can't figure it out, can you?
>
> So I repeat:
> "READ!!! READ!!! READ!!!! I SAID YOU HADN'T READ THE > BOOK!!! I EVEN
>>> PASTED THE URL INTO A POST TO THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE JUST FOR TO
> SEE!!! IT >> SAYS READ!!!!! R E A D Are you so thick that you
> don't know that >> R E A D is *NOT* OWN?? Apparently so."ad
>
> This whole post is a clear exercise on your part and it is evidence of
> your inability to comprehend anything beyond a second grade level.
>>
>> Rather than jump through his hoops, in reponse that day, I quickly posted
>> a
>> photo of the book, which I had had in my library for several years, with
>> a
>> note on it mocking this pathetic troll. I uploaded it to a binary group
>> and
>> the troll responded that he never went to binary groups so he couldn't
>> verify it.
>
> Which of course doesn't prove you owned it since you could have gotten
> the photo anywhere, and more importantly it certainly doesn't show, if
> you really posted the photo, that you *READ* the book.
Moron, I posted a note attached to it, appropriately mocking you.
I've said that, often enough.
In fact, there's a recent picture of it alt.binary, just like there was back
a year ago, fool.
>> He was trying to pretend that I only got things off the internet,
>
> So far, there still isn't any evidence that you don't.
Sure there is, you just cower form it and raise phony issues.
Else why would
> you plagiarize a novel you had characterized as mangled history to prove
> a point rather than a scholar whose book you claim was in your library for
> years and whose title is Christianity and Paganism.....the only
> explanation other than sheer stupidity is that you hadn't read the latter
> but had the former.
This scrambled obfuscated thing you wrote just above is indicative of
exactly what I have been pointing out about you, troll.
I supported the mithraism passage from the Brown novel with numerous cites
from actual scholars, including the Ramsay MacMullen book that you claimed a
year ago I didn't own, even after I proved I did.
You aren't losing it - you never had it...
> couldn't
>> have read this fairly hard-to-find scholarly book,
>
> It's published by Yale University Press and has been in print since 1997,
> it's still in print and is readily available at YUP, Amazon, Barnes and
> Noble, Blackwells, and other sources. What's hard to find about that?
Jesus christ, this guy is DUMB.
I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, pseudo-scholar, I responded with proof that i
owned it, within hours of your stupid claim that I didn't.
It takes days to get it delivered from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Blackwells,
TrollTurd, and a library book, if it could quickly be found, would have
library markings on it.
THAT'S WHY I POSTED A PHOTO OF IT BACK A YEAR AGO, POSTED IN ALT.BINARY
GROUP with a note on it, fool, as I have stated numerous times.
Jesus you're stupid. You set yourself up to look like a lying fool.
I recently re-posted a pic to alt.binary - look for a subject line with
"SWINETURD' on it.
> I've snipped the rest of the nonsense.
> Congratulations!! You've proven my points about you all the while
> feeling so self righteous....how funny!
I don't think so.
I think you're flailiing around like a liar who hasn't the intellectual
capability, or character, to call it quits and cut his loses.
This is a trivial issue, except in what it reveals, about you.
>
J Antero
==Dumbero, stop wasting bandwith, el pollo loco.==
LOL. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Martin
"J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:XM-dneSjTIWxWbzW...@earthlink.com...
I know. The onus of 'proof' will always be on you - Larry considers that
something is 'proven' if repeated as nauseum, declared insistently, or has
gone unquestioned for centuries... if whatever it happens to be meets with
his approval and/or liking of course.
As I have shown (and Larry has confirmed by his actions), when it comes to
issues where no definite proof or evidence is available, his lamentable lack
of reason, objectivity, open-mindedness and ability to back down, makes any
discussion inevitably descend into a sea of red-herrings and Nykosian
obfustication. He knows what he thinks he knows, which is what he believes
and that is that!
Martin
You need to know quite a bit Larry my friend!
Instead of believing what you like to hear...
Weland
This is what you call being a good guy, Paul: Hinesian style
mischaracterizations and errors in fact. Really, Paul?
igor
> "igor" <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Poor Dumbero the Retardero, still ignorant in his alternative universe
behind the garbage dumpster, in his delusional mind Georgian Einstein
hangs out with Stalin and Beria planning to conquer Russia, he's shown
up by getting verbally penetrated on Usenet. Keep hugging that
barrel , chuckle boy, JTEM is around the corner….
J Antero
==Poor Dumbero the Retardero, still ignorant in his alternative universe
behind the garbage dumpster, in his delusional mind Georgian Einstein
hangs out with Stalin and Beria planning to conquer Russia, he's shown
up by getting verbally penetrated on Usenet. Keep hugging that
barrel , chuckle boy, JTEM is around the corner�.===
Being "penetrated" is something that's prominent in your life, isn't it,
marico.
In a prevous exchange, this moron twat Ibor had stated :
"" " For your information the communists you are
talking about [taking over Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how is
it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
universe you come from, mr. Chuckle """
It had to be pointed out to the little Einstein that Stalin was Georgian,
Trotsky was Ukrainian, Felx Dzerjinski
was a Pole, Protian was Armenian, Kruschev (who replaced Stalin) was
Ukrainian.
He thinks that when I had previously called him an "Einstein", that I was
including Albert Einstein in the group that had taken over in the course of
the Russian Revolution.
This Einstein also denied that Trotsky was Ukrainian, saying instead that he
was a "Jew"..
Not only pathetic, but getting a little strange...
>
>
> You are nothng but an incompetent raving little liar and anti-jew.
>
> When I pointed out the that a lot of communists who took over Russia in
> the
> Revolution WEREN'T Russian, and his big
> reply is to agree with me, except ignoring Trotsky's Ukranian nationality,
> in favor of saying "Trotsky was a Jew".
>
igor
You are not only dumb, you are also a liar, anyone can look up your
previous post where you place Einstein, Stalin and Beria in the same
group, I am not even going to bother doing that. At least your not
chuckling anymore!!! Now scram behind that dumpster, el pollo..
J Antero
> > here?==
>
> > Ibor the stupid. A better question is what is marico like you doing
> > here?
> > Haven't you been shown up enough?
>
> ==Poor Dumbero the Retardero, still ignorant in his alternative universe
> behind the garbage dumpster, in his delusional mind Georgian Einstein
> hangs out with Stalin and Beria planning to conquer Russia, he's shown
> up by getting verbally penetrated on Usenet. Keep hugging that
===You are not only dumb, you are also a liar, anyone can look up your
previous post where you place Einstein, Stalin and Beria in the same
group, I am not even going to bother doing that. At least your not
chuckling anymore!!! Now scram behind that dumpster, el pollo..===
Stay in your dumpster, you simpering little chicken twat.
Here is the post Ibor the Stupid couldn't read right:
Ibor: " Hmmm, you have been chuckling to much, my son... For your
information
the communists you are talking about [ the Bolsheviks ] were Russians, how
is it possible
for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate universe
you come from, mr. Chuckle. "
Antero: " Stalin was Russian, Einstein? Beria?
Aside from the various nationalities it was to a large extent an ideological
war that had international aims. "
Even considering English being a second language, in the given context, how
could anybody think the term "Einstein" was being used as anyhting but a
farcial reference to someone who's not being too bright? And the little
buffoon has since been given numerous hints. What a chicken twat.
By the way, here's a list of Bolshevik Leaders in February, 1917, and their
nationalities. Almost 50 pct were not Russians.
Lenin Russian
Trotsky Ukrainian
Stalin Georgian
Dzerzhinsky Polish
Molotov Russian
Radek Austria-Hungary (now in Ukraine)
Ordzhonikidze Georgian
Latsis Latvian
Litvinov Polish-Lithuanian
Zinoviev Ukrainian
Antonov-Ovseenko Ukrainian
Bukharin Russian
Kamenev Russian
Kirov Russian
Rykov Russian
Sverdlov Russian
Uritsky Russian
Chicherin Russian
igor
> "igor" <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dumbero, you've been told many times, nationalities are irrelevant. It
was a civil war, revolution, not a conquering of Russia by other
nationalities, this is as basic as it gets, el pollo loco.
J Antero
=== Dumbero, you've been told many times, nationalities are irrelevant. ===
Ibor the Pollo Loco, has changed his story, completely.
Ibor the Pollo Loco: " the communists you are talking about [ the
Bolsheviks ] were Russians, how
is it possible for Russians to conquer Russians "
Well, of course, he was wrong, they weren't all Russians, and it was he who
raised the issue of "nationalities" - now he is sqawking and retreating -
roook buk buk - bad show - but funny.
== It was a civil war, revolution, not a conquering of Russia by other
nationalities, this is as basic as it gets,
Signed, el pollo loco. ====
I have previously said the Bolsheviks conquered russia. And they did.
Definition: "conquer"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CONQUER
1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms : subjugate <conquer territory>
2 : to overcome by force of arms : vanquish <conquered the enemy>
3 : to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition
<conquered the mountain>
4 : to overcome by mental or moral power : surmount <conquered her fear>
If the Bolsheviks had taken control of russia by some sort of non-violent
political process, then the first two definitions of the word would not
apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
""" Bolshevik-led attempts to seize power in other parts of the Russian
Empire were largely successful in Russia proper - although the fighting in
Moscow lasted for two weeks - but they were less successful in ethnically
non-Russian parts of the Empire, which had been clamoring for independence
since the February Revolution. For example, the Ukrainian Rada, which had
declared autonomy on 23 June 1917, created the Ukrainian People's Republic
on 20 November, which was supported by the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets.
This led to an armed conflict with the Bolshevik government in Petrograd
and, eventually, a Ukrainian declaration of independence from Russia on 25
January 1918.[6] In Estonia, two rival governments emerged: the Estonian
Provincial Assembly proclaimed itself the supreme legal authority of Estonia
on 28 November 1917 and issued the Declaration of Independence on 24
February 1918, while an Estonian Bolshevik sympathizer, Jaan Anvelt, was
recognized by Lenin's government as Estonia's leader on 8 December, although
forces loyal to Anvelt controlled only the capital.[7] """"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)
""" The Bolsheviks formed workers militias under their control into the Red
Guards (later the Red Army) over which they exerted substantial control.[1]
In the October Revolution (November on the Gregorian calendar), the
Bolshevik party, led by Vladimir Lenin, and the workers' Soviets, overthrew
the Provisional Government in Petrograd. The Bolsheviks appointed themselves
as leaders of various government ministries and seized control of the
countryside, establishing the Cheka to ruthlessly quash dissent. To end the
war, the Bolshevik leadership signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with
Germany in March 1918. However a brutal civil war erupted between the "Red"
(Bolshevik), and "White" (anti-Bolshevik), factions, which was to continue
for several years, with the Bolsheviks ultimately victorious. In this way
the Revolution paved the way for the USSR. While many notable historical
events occurred in Moscow and Petrograd, there was also a broadly-based
movement in cities throughout the state, among national minorities
throughout the empire, and in the rural areas, where peasants took over and
redistributed land. """"
[]
""" The Russian Civil War, which broke out in 1918 shortly after the
revolution, brought death and suffering to millions of people regardless of
their political orientation. The war was fought mainly between the Red Army
("Reds"), consisting of radical communist revolutionaries, and the
"Whites"-the monarchists, conservatives, liberals and moderate socialists
who opposed the drastic restructuring championed by the Bolsheviks. The
Whites had backing from nations such as Great Britain, France, USA and
Japan.
Also during the Civil War, Nestor Makhno led a Ukrainian anarchist movement,
the Black Army allied to the Bolsheviks thrice, one of the powers ending the
alliance each time. However, a Bolshevik force under Mikhail Frunze
destroyed the Makhnovist movement, when the Makhnovists refused to merge
into the Red Army. In addition, the so-called "Green Army" (peasants
defending their property against the opposing forces) played a secondary
role in the war, mainly in the Ukraine. """""
I think anyone with any common sense can understand what is meant by "the
Bolsheviks conquered Russia".
ADR
Igor, you are right but this is a fight over semantics. Nobody took
over on conquered "Russia" in 1917 because "Russia" was only one of
the Russias in the Empire ruled by the czars. The czar was actually
addressed as the "Czar of all Russias", the multiplicity of which was
the case since the breakup of the Kievan principality and the slow re-
assembly of this state by the princes of Muschovy. In any case, there
was a Bolchevik takeover of the Empire of the Czars which was a
multiethnic state. The Empire was transformed into the "Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics" (USSR), a multiethnic state with Russia
being one of these republics containing a number of semi-autonomous
regions. When the USSR was dissolved, Russia became an independent
state, territorially roughly coincident with the empire ruled by the
Czars in the early 17th century.
Martin
Are you appealing to Saint Paul here?
He will not help you Larry...and look what happened to him, is that the way
you wish to end up?
Upside down you obviously are, and crucified too - for all to see. 'Tis your
choice...?
I sincerely hope it is not the Blessed Paul Gans you are referring to here?
He will help you even less I fear, having avoided the road to Damascus, and
being supremely pragmatic... and ruthlrddly objective and honest.
I have no 'master' in this world (or on SHM, or Usenet) who you can appeal
to Larry, surely you realise this by now?
I am the Master of my own Destiny... and if you wish me to be the destroyer
of yours, keep up this Sepponic nonsense!
igor
Tsardom of Russia became a Russian empire under Peter the great. The
October revolution cannot be classified as a conquest of Russian
empire by ethnic Bolsheviks as our resident kook argues, the majority
of Bolsheviks were ethnic Russians, it was a war of classes not
ethnicities.
J Antero
"Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:XVaVm.38549$O74....@newsfe25.ams2...
Well said.
>
>
>
>
>
>
J Antero
===Tsardom of Russia became a Russian empire under Peter the great. The
October revolution cannot be classified as a conquest of Russian
empire by ethnic Bolsheviks as our resident kook argues, the majority
of Bolsheviks were ethnic Russians, it was a war of classes not
ethnicities.===
Ibor the Pollo Loco, has changed his story, completely.
Ibor the Pollo Loco: " the communists you are talking about [ the
Bolsheviks ] were Russians, how
is it possible for Russians to conquer Russians "
Well, of course, he was wrong, they weren't all Russians, and it was he who
raised the issue of "nationalities" - now he is sqawking and retreating -
roook buk buk - bad show - but funny.
Lenin Russian
Trotsky Ukrainian
Stalin Georgian
Dzerzhinsky Polish
Molotov Russian
Radek Austria-Hungary (now in Ukraine)
Ordzhonikidze Georgian
Latsis Latvian
Litvinov Polish-Lithuanian
Zinoviev Ukrainian
Antonov-Ovseenko Ukrainian
Bukharin Russian
Kamenev Russian
Kirov Russian
Rykov Russian
Sverdlov Russian
Uritsky Russian
Chicherin Russian
== It was a civil war, revolution, not a conquering of Russia by other
nationalities, this is as basic as it gets,
Signed, el pollo loco. ====
igor
>
> read more »
Getting high behind the dumpster again?
J Antero
==Getting high behind the dumpster again? ===
Ibor the Stupid - from what you post, that would be much more along your
line - glue sniffing could be an explanation.
igor
how bizarre, spare us the details, what you do in your spare time is
your business, loco.
J Antero
==how bizarre, spare us the details, what you do in your spare time is
your business, loco.==
Sorry sport, but it isn't my posts that are full of errors, disjointed
logic, retreats and reversals - it's yours... glue sniiffing in dumpsters?
Ibor the dumpster sniffer:
"" " For your information the communists you are talking about [taking over
Russia in the Revolution] were Russians, how is
it possible for Russians to conquer Russians??? Maybe in the alternate
universe you come from, mr. Chuckle """
Well, of course, he was wrong, they weren't all Russians.
Bolshevik leaders in Feb., 1917
Lenin Russian
Trotsky Ukrainian
Stalin Georgian
Dzerzhinsky Polish
Molotov Russian
Radek Austria-Hungary (now in Ukraine)
Ordzhonikidze Georgian
Latsis Latvian
Litvinov Polish-Lithuanian
Zinoviev Ukrainian
Antonov-Ovseenko Ukrainian
Bukharin Russian
Kamenev Russian
Kirov Russian
Rykov Russian
Sverdlov Russian
Uritsky Russian
Chicherin Russian
And, of course, the definition of "conquer" followed by some descriptions of
how the Bolsheviks took over Russia and the ensuing war.
Definition: "conquer"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CONQUER
[]
who opposed the drastic restructuring championed by the Bolsheviks. The
Whites had backing from nations such as Great Britain, France, USA and
Japan.
Also during the Civil War, Nestor Makhno led a Ukrainian anarchist movement,
the Black Army allied to the Bolsheviks thrice, one of the powers ending the
alliance each time. However, a Bolshevik force under Mikhail Frunze
destroyed the Makhnovist movement, when the Makhnovists refused to merge
into the Red Army. In addition, the so-called "Green Army" (peasants
defending their property against the opposing forces) played a secondary
role in the war, mainly in the Ukraine. """""
I think anyone with any common sense can understand what is meant by "the
Bolsheviks conquered Russia".
Isn't usenet great? A record is always so readily available to show who is
full of shit, and who isn't...
igor
Certainly not you, loco. btw, you are doing such a bang up job cutting
and pasting over and over again, go ahead knock yourself out...and
find a local aa meeting.
J Antero
=== Certainly not you, ===
I'm glad you can realise that - am I making progress, or what? ;-)
==loco. btw, you are doing such a bang up job cutting
and pasting over and over again, go ahead knock yourself out...and
find a local aa meeting. ===
Ibor, the world is filled with people who have little idea of what is going
on around them, much less what has happened in the past.
There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
ADR
> Ibor, the world is filled with people who have little idea of what is going
> on around them, much less what has happened in the past.
>
> There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
> parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
I am not sure what this fight is all about here apart from the desire
to spar. Igor is right that there was no conquest. The Czarist
empire, a multiethnic state, was taken over ****through a process of
internal revolution**** by a group, the Bolsheviks, which was as
multiethnic as the state they took over and which had formed and
operated within the said state. There were Ukranians, Georgians,
White Russsians, Volga Germans, Fins, Kazaks, Uzbecks in various
responsible positions in the Czarist Empire and the same medley was
present (and probably more so) in the ensuing constitutional change
and in the Bolshevik group that eventually took power. In fact, the
Bolshevik faction had to subdue a number of regional revolts and push
back the Poles who had advanced almost to the gates of Moscow.
igor
I was being sarcastic, but look: no copying and pasting, no
chuckling... maybe there is hope.. miracles happen sometimes.
> ==loco. btw, you are doing such a bang up job cutting
> and pasting over and over again, go ahead knock yourself out...and
> find a local aa meeting. ===
>
> Ibor, the world is filled with people who have little idea of what is going
> on around them, much less what has happened in the past.
>
> There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
> parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
Loco, don't be too hard on yourself, its okay, we understand.
J Antero
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6bfb5deb-2b3b-4f64...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 14, 5:07 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Ibor, the world is filled with people who have little idea of what is
> going
> on around them, much less what has happened in the past.
>
> There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
> parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
==I am not sure what this fight is all about here apart from the desire
to spar. Igor is right that there was no conquest.==
You exhibit the same level of incompetence as when you told me that the
winter had no role in the defeat of the Germans in Dec1941, in the German /
Sov. war
The Bolsheviks were one of several groups trying to take control in russia,
and in the various countries held by the Russian Empire - most of which
wanted to be free states.
The bolsheviks made alot of promises of land ownership to the peasants, used
ruthless tactics, used force to gain control, and then used war to subdue
and take over a number of these states. This is a matter of history.
As to "conquer", like Ibor you don't understand what the term means.
Once again, here it is:
Definition: "conquer"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CONQUER
1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms : subjugate <conquer territory>
2 : to overcome by force of arms : vanquish <conquered the enemy>
3 : to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition
<conquered the mountain>
4 : to overcome by mental or moral power : surmount <conquered her fear>
As to applying it to a civil war, in the American Civil War, the Northern
forces conquered the South. They even waged a campaign of intentional
destruction in the South - as in Sherman's march to the sea. That is, the
north gained or acquired control of the South by force of arms.
Another example: from http://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1919/11/06.htm
Quote from Karl Radek, international Communist leader after the Russian
Revolution, 1919. - """ When the Bolsheviks **conquered** political
power-sooner than they expected-they could not accommodate themselves within
the framework of the National Assembly, and would not have been able to do
so even if they had a majority there, which, however, was not the case,
although, as you know, they had behind them the majority of the peasants,
who expected from them land. The Bolsheviks dissolved the. National
Assembly, not merely because of its composition, which, owing to the
defective Bolshevik organisation in the villages and to the erroneous
identification of the Left Social-Revolutionaries, the allies of the
Bolsheviks, with the Right Social-Revolutionaries, their opponents-that is,
owing to the peasant lack of intelligence-was in contradiction with the real
aspirations of the popular masses. If that had been the only issue, the
Bolsheviks could have ordered new elections. The real reason was that we saw
that parliamentarism cannot be the instrument of Socialist construction.
"""
The Russian Revolution Written by Richard Pipes
about this book
In this monumental history of the Russian Revolution, Pipes argues
convincingly that the Russian Revolution was an intellectual, rather than a
class, uprising; that it was steeped in terror from its very outset; and
that it was not a revolution at all but a coup d'�tat. Pipes goes on to
examine the establishment in Soviet Russia between 1917 and 1920 of a new
type of regime: the world's first modern, industrial, totalitarian state.
In Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, Pipes describes the Civil War, the
attempts to export the revolution abroad, and the solidification of the
Communist state in the early 1920s. This volume is the successor to Pipes'
renowned Russia Under the Old Regime and achieves a similar definitive
authority for one of the defining events of our time. 100 photographs
PRAISE FOR The Russian Revolution:
"Mr. Pipes writes trenchantly, and at times superbly.... No single volume
known to me even begins to cater so adequately to those who want to discover
what really happened to Russia.... Nor do I know any other book better
designed to help Soviet citizens to struggle out of the darkness."--New York
Times Book Review
"A monumental study...of absorbing interest [by] the distinguished historian
of modern Russia.... Lucidly written, unsurpassed in detail and
comprehensiveness."--Wall Street Journal
CONTENTS
Part One: The Agony of the Old Regime
1. 1905: The Foreshock
2. Official Russia
3. Rural Russia
4. The Intelligentsia
5. The Constitutional Experiment
6. Russia at War
7. Toward the Catastrophe
8. The February Revolution
Part Two: The Bolsheviks Conquer Russia
9. Lenin and the Origins of Bolshevism
10. The Bolshevik Bid for Power
11. The October Coup
12. Building the One-Party State
13. Brest-Litovsk
14. The Revolution Internationalized
15. "War Communism"
16. War on the Village
17. Murder of the Imperial Family
18. Red Terror
In addition, the Bolshevik movement that took over Russia, and then a number
of other states, was a political movement with international aims, made up
almost 50 pct, by none Russians.
AGAIN: Bolshevik leadership in Feb., 1917.
Lenin Russian
Trotsky Ukrainian
Stalin Georgian
Dzerzhinsky Polish
Molotov Russian
Radek Austria-Hungary (now in Ukraine)
Ordzhonikidze Georgian
Latsis Latvian
Litvinov Polish-Lithuanian
Zinoviev Ukrainian
Antonov-Ovseenko Ukrainian
Bukharin Russian
Kamenev Russian
Kirov Russian
Rykov Russian
Sverdlov Russian
Uritsky Russian
Chicherin Russian
Now, another point. If the Bolsheviks had been a popular benign movement
largely supported by the peoples of the lands that took control of, it
wouldn't seem they would have had to use the tactics and wage the
destructive level of wars they had to. Millions died.
Their main Bolshevik asset was the disunity and disparate aims of the
various groups and ethnic groups they had to fight in 1917 to 1921..
And now another point. To stay in control, the Bolsheviks essentially used
terror, murder and mass murder on their own populace, at least through the
end of Stalin's reign.
It is estimated that the Bolshevik regime, through to the end of Staln's
reign, brought about the deaths of something like 20 million of its own
people.
This is unique in world history, and it is ludicrous to think that the
populace was not cowed and "conquered" by this systematic victimization that
made everyone afraid of what they said and did.
Early on, the Soviet govermant even created an artificail famine in which
millions died, and got through it with no real rebellions - those are
conquered peoples.
As to Ukraine, Poland, Finland, Georgia, the Balitc states, etc., etc.,
thinking they were "Russians" becasue they had at one time or anthoer been
held in the Russian Empire - look what choices they made when they were able
to. Given the chance, they wanted to be independat states, and became so.
This is hardly a new topic, nor is my use of the term "conquered" with
respect to the Bolsheviks taking power, new or unique. A number of
historians over the years have used it - most notably Pipes.
Read the extracts from wiki.
J Antero
igor
> There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
> parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
Here we go again. You must use some kind of really strong, industrial
grade glue.
Several posters who know the subject were kind enough to explain, but
noooo, Dubero does not listen. Stay ignorant, closed issue.
J Antero
On Dec 14, 6:52 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
> parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
===Here we go again. ===
No, dumpster sniffer, "we" don't.
There *you* go, again.
You are posting in a history newsgroup - you don;t know any, and all you can
do is be a troll parading your inanity.
Enough.
ADR
> "ADR" <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6bfb5deb-2b3b-4f64...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 5:07 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Ibor, the world is filled with people who have little idea of what is
> > going
> > on around them, much less what has happened in the past.
>
> > There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
> > parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
>
> ==I am not sure what this fight is all about here apart from the desire
> to spar. Igor is right that there was no conquest.==
>
> You exhibit the same level of incompetence as when you told me that the
> winter had no role in the defeat of the Germans in Dec1941, in the German /
> Sov. war
You exhibit continuously the same maniacal adherence to want to debate
what your impression is about the topic of the discussion instead of
what it actually is. You may want to post about a hundred entries
about the term "conquer" and "conquest" but in virtually all
circumstances, the term applies to one group winning the territory of
another. It hardly applies to groups that gain power through a
revolutionary process. Instead of offering a nuianced elaboration of
this and accepting Igor's point that no outside groups were involved,
you have engaged in a wholesale copying of texts of the Russian
revolution that was never the issue of the discussion.
And you still do not get it regarding the battle of Moscow. Not much
of a surprise, here. Had the Russians not withdrawn the Siberian
divisions (because of Japan's orientation of its forces), and moved
them to Moscow, the winter would not have made any difference to the
outcome of the battle. The Germans would have captured Moscow by
March 1942 at the latest. And when Zhukov unleashed his attack against
the German advance, it was not the winter that caused the German
defeat. Even if the Germans were excellently provisioned, the
substantial local superiority achieved by the Red Army and the immense
tactical surprise was more than enough to cause the defeat the Army
Group Center. Even if one assumes that the winter had an effect, it
would only had that effect because the German planners failed to
adequately provision the troops. Thus, it was not a random factor
that caused the German defeat (even if you want to factor in the
weather). And if affected both participants. If you read a detailed
account of the fighting in the winter of 1941-42 (not what you unearth
at the Internet) you will find out that the Red Army, despite been
better provisioned, suffered substantially from the winter too. And
the Germans, despite suffering from the cold, won several engagements
in the central front before the Zhukov counterattack. It is not as if
their generals told their troops to take a break because of the
winter.
In any case, if you cannot understand these simple logical
propositions, there is nothing to discuss and you can continue to
hammer it out with Igor about what "conquer" really means.
igor
> "igor" <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Even if you copy and paste the complete encyclopedia Britannica here,
you will still be Dumbero the Ignorantero.
J Antero
On Dec 14, 6:50 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> "ADR" <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6bfb5deb-2b3b-4f64...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 5:07 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > Ibor, the world is filled with people who have little idea of what is
> > going
> > on around them, much less what has happened in the past.
>
> > There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
> > parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
>
> ==I am not sure what this fight is all about here apart from the desire
> to spar. Igor is right that there was no conquest.==
>
> You exhibit the same level of incompetence as when you told me that the
> winter had no role in the defeat of the Germans in Dec1941, in the German
> /
> Sov. war
====You exhibit continuously the same maniacal adherence to want to debate
what your impression is about the topic of the discussion instead of
what it actually is. ===
Unfortuantely, your reply is at your usual low level of intellectual
quality.
===You may want to post about a hundred entries
about the term "conquer" and "conquest" but in virtually all
circumstances, the term applies to one group winning the territory of
another. ===
You are in your usual fog. Even with the diefinition of "conquer" in front
of you, you
still can't get it right.
"Conquer" is applied to beating something or someone.
In the four applications of the word given below, territory is mentioned in
only one. I even gave an example in which Bolshevik leader Radek (from a
translation) said: " When the Bolsheviks **conquered** political
power-sooner than they expected-they could..".
Definition: "conquer"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CONQUER
1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms : subjugate <conquer territory>
2 : to overcome by force of arms : vanquish <conquered the enemy>
3 : to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition
<conquered the mountain>
4 : to overcome by mental or moral power : surmount <conquered her fear>
=== It hardly applies to groups that gain power through a
revolutionary process. ===
You are wrong, again. No where in the definition is it hinted that a
distinction exists for revolutions.
You were even given an example of historian Ricahrd Pipe's use of the term
applied to the Bolshevik take over, heading a whole section of his book.
"The Russian Revolution", Pipes...
Part Two: The Bolsheviks **Conquer** Russia
9. Lenin and the Origins of Bolshevism
10. The Bolshevik Bid for Power
11. The October Coup
12. Building the One-Party State
13. Brest-Litovsk
14. The Revolution Internationalized
15. "War Communism"
16. War on the Village
17. Murder of the Imperial Family
18. Red Terror
=== Instead of offering a nuianced elaboration of
this and accepting Igor's point that no outside groups were involved,
you have engaged in a wholesale copying of texts of the Russian
revolution that was never the issue of the discussion.===
Einstein, Communism in its various forms was an international political
movement - The Communist Manifesto was written by two Germans.
In Russia, at that time, just under 50 pct of the Bolshevik leaders were
non-Russian. This has been shown to you, a number of times.
AGAIN: Bolshevik leadership in Feb., 1917.
Lenin Russian
Trotsky Ukrainian
Stalin Georgian
Dzerzhinsky Polish
Molotov Russian
Radek Austria-Hungary (now in Ukraine)
Ordzhonikidze Georgian
Latsis Latvian
Litvinov Polish-Lithuanian
Zinoviev Ukrainian
Antonov-Ovseenko Ukrainian
Bukharin Russian
Kamenev Russian
Kirov Russian
Rykov Russian
Sverdlov Russian
Uritsky Russian
Chicherin Russian
===And you still do not get it regarding the battle of Moscow. Not much
of a surprise, here. Had the Russians not withdrawn the Siberian
divisions (because of Japan's orientation of its forces), and moved
them to Moscow, the winter would not have made any difference to the
outcome of the battle.===
LOL. Now, you retreat from your original retreat. A few months ago you ran
away from your claim that the winter had nothing to do with stopping the
germans at Moscow in Dec., 1941. Now you're back to it.
A re-retreat...
=== The Germans would have captured Moscow by
March 1942 at the latest.==
Really, based on what, Einstein?. Have you ever looked at a map of Moscow
with all those raillines running into it like spokes on a wheel? Endless
supplies and troops easily put in from all over the remaining Sov. Union.
Do you think the Germans had any advantage over the Red Army in urban
combat? A good argument could be made that "stalingrad" could have happened
sooner, a few hundred miles north.
=== And when Zhukov unleashed his attack against
the German advance, it was not the winter that caused the German
defeat. ===
Do you think this was the first counter-attack the Red army tried on the
Germans in 1941?
Zhukov in post-war interviews himself stated thta it was not clear if the
Red Army could hold Moscow. Moscow was being evacuated by the government.
Nobody knew better than Zhukov what forces he had avialble for
counter-attack - to Zhukov, it was NOT clear that the Germans could be
stopped.
As was expalined to you before, this was the first counter-attack launched
that caught the ill-supplied Germans wearing summer gear in sub-Arctic
temperatures, with weapons that didn't work in sub-Arctic temperatures, and
trucks and AFVs whose enigines didn't start in sub-Arctic temperatures.
Even with the counter attack, most of the german casualties of the time were
cold related, versus weapons.
By the time of Dec., 1941, the Red Army had captured some German equipment
and weapons and would have run evaluations. Being highly competent in
intelligence, research and organization, a big question in their minds
would have been: "how well does German equipment work in the temperatures
that are experienced in this region during winter". The answer would have
been - not very well.
Absolute War, Bellamy, 2007, page 322
""" In 1942, too late to be of any use, German intelligence circulated
comments allegedly made by Marshall Timoshenko at the time. Timoshenko had
reportedly said the Russians should wait to go over to the attack when the
first few days of cold had broken the backbone of the Germans. That would
happen when the temperature had dropped to 20� Fahrenheit below 0 -- in
other words -- -29 centigrade, when the German tanks and motorized artillery
became useless. Zhukov supposedly added that he expected the start and the
course of the offensive to be determined by the weather, and its success to
depend on freezing off German equipment. """
Bellamy goes on to say that the German intelligence report might just be
spin to make them feel better about the defeat.
However, a few logical points:
1) if the Red Army was acting like any other modern army, then they most
certainly would have been evaluating enemy equipment, and winter capabiltiy
would have had to be a top issue of interest.
2) if Zhukov and Timoshenko were competent, and they were, they certainly
would have been wanting to use weather and enemy capabilites in their
planning.
3) if German intelligence was any good at all, they wouldn't have been
circulating feel good spin stories that might mislead the German military
leadership in their evaluations and planning.
Anyone who knows anything about the German-Soviet war knows the condition of
the dirt roads (even before the fall rains (look up rasputitsa)) and
different gauge rails greatly slowed German supply transport and infantry /
armor formations, during the critical initial advance of 1941. Any real
chance they had for a knock out blow was lost.
It is especially stupid to claim the winter affected the Russians the same
as the Germans, as you have in the past, and then retreated from, and now
have re-retreated.
The Russians had equipment designed to for sub-arctic
conditions, the Germans didn't. Most of their transport trucks were 2 wheel
drive. Some of the German weapons even froze up at very low temperatures.
German lubricants froze- tank and truck engines wouldn't turn over without
having a fire built below them and then engines had to be kept running,
consuming diminishing fuel supplies and further wearing out engines.
The Russians weren't at the end of a long tenuous supply line at the
critical point of the onset of the winter of '41-42, in the same way the
Germans were. The Germans had to choose between transporting winter clothing
and supplies to their front, or ammunition. They had to choose ammunition.
During that period, the Germans had very heavy losses of men and equipment,
much of it directly and indirectly stemming from the intense cold (cold, as
in russian winter).
The Red Army even had a term for describing the advantage that the winter
gave them: "winter Fritz".
=== Even if the Germans were excellently provisioned, the
substantial local superiority achieved by the Red Army and the immense
tactical surprise was more than enough to cause the defeat the Army
Group Center. ====
Really? You tried that stupid idea months ago, and I knocked it down then
simply by pointing out that Zhukov in post-war interviews himself stated
thta it was not clear if the Red Army could hold Moscow. Moscow was being
**evacuated** by the government. Nobody knew better than Zhukov what forces
he had avialble for counter-attack - to Zhukov, it was NOT clear that the
Germans could be stopped from getting into Moscow.
This wasn't the first counter attack by the Red Army on the Germans - this
was the first counter-attack launched that caught the ill-supplied Germans
wearing summer gear in sub-Arctic temperatures, with weapons that didn't
work in sub-Arctic temperatures, and trucks and AFVs whose enigines didn't
start in sub-Arctic temperatures.
Tell us, if the winter didn't make any difference, then why when the winter
was over, were the Germans able to go right back to defeating the Red Army
at the outset of Operation Blue?
In spring, 1942, the Red Army tried a surprise offensive on the Germans and
it was destroyed.
Here, again, so maybe the logic of it will sink into what little intellect
you have:
By the time of Dec., 1941, the Red Army had captured some German equipment
and weapons and would have run evaluations. Being highly competent in
intelligence, research and organization, a big question in their minds would
have been: "how well does German equipment work in the temperatures that are
experienced in this region during winter". The answer would have been - not
very well.
Absolute War, Bellamy, 2007, page 322
""" In 1942, too late to be of any use, German intelligence circulated
comments allegedly made by Marshall Timoshenko at the time. Timoshenko had
reportedly said the Russians should wait to go over to the attack when the
first few days of cold had broken the backbone of the Germans. That would
happen when the temperature had dropped to 20� Fahrenheit below 0 -- in
other words -- -29 centigrade, when the German tanks and motorized artillery
became useless. Zhukov supposedly added that he expected the start and the
course of the offensive to be determined by the weather, and its success to
depend on freezing off German equipment. """
Bellamy goes on to say that the German intelligence report might just be
spin to make them feel better about the defeat.
However, a few logical points:
1) if the Red Army was acting like any other modern army, then they most
certainly would have been evaluating enemy equipment, and winter capabiltiy
would have had to be a top issue of interest.
2) if Zhukov and Timoshenko were competent, and they were, they certainly
would have been wanting to use weather and enemy capabilites in their
planning.
3) if German intelligence was any good at all, they wouldn't have been
circulating feel good spin stories that might mislead the German military
leadership in their evaluations and planning.
Anastassios, if your fellow Macedonian, Alexander, had had your thinking
ability, Darius probably would have wound up in Ireland...
<snip further rubbish>
J Antero
On Dec 14, 8:38 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> "igor" <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e6ddeafb-7ea2-4b39...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 6:52 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
> > There's no crime in being a dummy, Ibor, but to put the whole thing on
> > parade, over and over, on usenet,, well....
>
> ===Here we go again. ===
>
> No, dumpster sniffer, "we" don't.
>
> There *you* go, again.
>
> You are posting in a history newsgroup - you don;t know any, and all you
> can
> do is be a troll parading your inanity.
>
> Enough.
===Even if you copy and paste the complete encyclopedia Britannica here,
you will still be Dumbero the Ignorantero.===
... so says our very own Quasimodo of trollism...
ADR
> === And when Zhukov unleashed his attack against
> the German advance, it was not the winter that caused the German
> defeat. ===
>
> Do you think this was the first counter-attack the Red army tried on the
> Germans in 1941?
>
> Zhukov in post-war interviews himself stated thta it was not clear if the
> Red Army could hold Moscow. Moscow was being evacuated by the government.
> Nobody knew better than Zhukov what forces he had avialble for
> counter-attack - to Zhukov, it was NOT clear that the Germans could be
> stopped.
It is clear from the above of your serious confusion about this
subject. I would suggest that you need to read the information more
closely and not to assume that those on the other end would eat the
soup you serve.
First and foremost, Zhukov was correct in these statements as the
events were unraveling even in early to mid November '41. The Soviet
government was about to abandon Moscow and it was actually Stalin who
announced that he would stay no matter what. That stiffened response
in the early phases of the German offensive.
And those who know the history of WWII know that Zhukov did not know
what forces he had available to hold Moscow and counter-attack. Not
at least before Richard Sorge informed Moscow of the Japanese
intention to launch an attack against the United States and not to
move against the USSR. When this information was verified (Sorge had
warned Moscow about the launching of Barbarossa but he was not
believed), Zhukov was able to withdraw the Siberian divisions and
redeploy them against the Germans in Moscow. ****NOT BEFORE****. If
Japan had remained irresolute and heeded German requests to attack the
USSR, those Siberian divisions would have stayed where they were to
confront the Japanese army. Zhukov would have only the forces already
engaged in front of Moscow and which were unable to stem the German
advance, despite the harshness of the winter. Of course, when such a
huge reserve became available, the German advance against Moscow was
in real trouble (although the Germans had little or no intelligence
that the counterattack was impending).
So, let's review here. You did not know of Richard Sorge's
contribution and the fact that Zhukov could not have moved the
Siberian divisions before Japan was out of the picture but you felt
compelled to make comments. You did use Zhukov's statements not
related to the picture in December 1941 to make an erroneous point.
Isn't this typical of you?
> As was expalined to you before, this was the first counter-attack launched
> that caught the ill-supplied Germans wearing summer gear in sub-Arctic
> temperatures, with weapons that didn't work in sub-Arctic temperatures, and
> trucks and AFVs whose enigines didn't start in sub-Arctic temperatures.
Again, this is wildly off the mark. The Germans did not wear summer
uniforms at all (any survey of the photos of the period would easily
illustrate this). They did have uniforms and equipment that would
have worked fine in a typical North European winter. The conditions
in December 1941 were quite harsh, but this did not mean that the
German units could not operate. The "home front" in Germany worked
hard from October onwards to send to the men additional supplies
(sweaters, coats, gloves etc) and these reached most units in the
front after the initial shock of the harsh winter. But summer
uniforms??? Where do you dream these things? A number of men suffered
from frostbites (frostbite casualties were high) and cars and tanks
had to be warmed up to start, but the Germans fought tenaciously in
offensive operations until the huge counter-attack severed the lines
between a variety of units and left many surrounded and others
destroyed. In fact, the battle of Moscow marks the only time that
Hitler gave a correct order in the Eastern Front. His decision that
the units should stand up and fight where they stood saved the
Wehrmacht. Had the Russian attack caused a massive retreat, the
Wehrmacht would have been destroyed. As it was, it lost about 1
million men (dead, wounded and prisoners). The battle continued well
into 1942 until the Russian attack lost steam and suffered huge losses
attacking entrenched German positions (from those frozen Germans!!).
By standing and fighting, the Germans prevented the total collapse of
the front and at the end of the battle, both armies stood bled and
exhausted.
Next time, please inform yourself better. Cutting and pasting what
you like (and leaving out what you do not like) from the Internet is
not a substitute for knowledge. It seems to me that you want to pick
up fights where no fights exist (see the totally redundant discussion
on conquer) and in the process you make a fool of yourself whatever
handle you use (Tiglath, Andero etc, etc). I am sure that I have not
heard the end of this. After I did prove to you that Hannibal did
indeed lead the center in the battle of Cannae by posting the whole
account from Polybius (and you challenged me to prove this!!!), you
started a whole discussion on the reliability of Polybius and Livy and
many modern historians and started theorizing what Hannibal may or may
not have done during the battle (instead of simply noting that I was
indeed correct), substituting "your intellect" (sic) for the absence
of any hard information on this subject. Next time you decide to
argue with historians about the battle of Cannae or that of Moscow,
why don't you publish your own theories and leave us in peace???? I
am sure that now you would be posting all kinds of information as to
what/when/how Sorge told Moscow and how the Siberian divisions arrived
and all kinds of useless stuff you can find in the Internet but who
gives a damn?
What do you need to prove anyway???
J Antero
On Dec 15, 6:08 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> === And when Zhukov unleashed his attack against
> the German advance, it was not the winter that caused the German
> defeat. ===
>
> Do you think this was the first counter-attack the Red army tried on the
> Germans in 1941?
>
> Zhukov in post-war interviews himself stated thta it was not clear if the
> Red Army could hold Moscow. Moscow was being evacuated by the government.
> Nobody knew better than Zhukov what forces he had avialble for
> counter-attack - to Zhukov, it was NOT clear that the Germans could be
> stopped.
===It is clear from the above of your serious confusion about this
subject. I would suggest that you need to read the information more
closely and not to assume that those on the other end would eat the
soup you serve.===
I see that you've abandoned all that nonsense you were putting out about the
Russian Revolution.
Do you know the definition of the word "conquer" now?
===First and foremost, Zhukov was correct in these statements as the
events were unraveling even in early to mid November '41. ===
What Zhukov statements? What are you talking about?
"..events were unraveling even in early to mid November '41.. :
Events had been unraveling since June 22, '41.
== The Soviet
government was about to abandon Moscow and it was actually Stalin who
announced that he would stay no matter what. That stiffened response
in the early phases of the German offensive.===
You really are a pap poster. what you're doing is parroting stuff on TV.
What happened was that in mid October '41, Stalin ordered the evacuation of
the the government from Moscow. This created a panic in the city with riots
and looting - apparnetly some rioters were even yelling Nazi slogans. In the
face of all this, Stalin halted the evacuation and held a military parade
in Red Square on November 7 to stop what he saw as a rising tide of panic
and disintergration.
===And those who know the history of WWII know that Zhukov did not know
what forces he had available to hold Moscow and counter-attack. Not
at least before Richard Sorge informed Moscow of the Japanese
intention to launch an attack against the United States and not to
move against the USSR. ===
Idiot - more brainless parotting of mis-History Channel drivel designed for
14 year olds and usenet retards.
I was obviously refering to a *post-war* interview Zhukov gave. He wasn't
giving real time media interviews in WW2....
(Post-war, he would have known what he had had in the way of troops, in
late 1941, at Moscow, right?)
Just to clear some of the fog you're wandering around in, Anastassios...
Sorge's intelligence report about Japan going south, rather than attacking
the Sov Union, reached Stalin in late Sep., 1941.
As stated above, Stalin ordered the evacuation of Moscow in mid October..
get the significance, dumbass?
Like, he ordered the evacuation of Moscow 2 or 3 weeks *after* the Sorge
intelligence report...
And, any Japanese ground attack by the Kwantung army would have been a
couple thousand miles to the east of any important Soviet
manufacturing/population centers - in the sub-Arctic winter. Did anybody
realy think the Japanese were going to attack into the winter, or that they
had anything to capture that was anywhere near as critical as what the
Germans were threatening?
Little guys with coke bottle lense glasses, trying to wade 2000 miles
westward through twenty-foot snow... hmmm?
In fact, significant Soviet troop movements from the east had begun in the
spring of 1941 - the spring, Einstein.
The germans reported Asian Soviet troops operating in the Leningrad area,
early on.
After the fighting started, the Red Army had been shipping some damaged
divisions to the east to replace fresh division that they swapped out to go
west.
What you posted was brainless parroting of mis-History Channel ruffage.
===When this information was verified (Sorge had
warned Moscow about the launching of Barbarossa but he was not
believed), Zhukov was able to withdraw the Siberian divisions and
redeploy them against the Germans in Moscow. ****NOT BEFORE****. If
Japan had remained irresolute and heeded German requests to attack the====
See above, nitwit.
The Sorge report reached Stalin in late Sep., 1941; Stalin ordered the
evacuation of moscow in mid October.
Unit tranfers and unit exchanges between east and west had already been
uderway.
===USSR, those Siberian divisions would have stayed where they were to
confront the Japanese army. Zhukov would have only the forces already
engaged in front of Moscow and which were unable to stem the German
advance, despite the harshness of the winter. Of course, when such a
huge reserve became available, the German advance against Moscow was
in real trouble (although the Germans had little or no intelligence
that the counterattack was impending).====
See above, nitwit.
The Sorge report reached Stalin in late Sep., 1941; Stalin ordered the
evacuation of moscow in mid October.
Unit tranfers and unit exchanges between east and west had already been
uderway.
===So, let's review here. You did not know of Richard Sorge's
contribution and the fact that Zhukov could not have moved the
Siberian divisions before Japan was out of the picture but you felt
compelled to make comments. You did use Zhukov's statements not
related to the picture in December 1941 to make an erroneous point.
Isn't this typical of you?====
You are a brainless clown.
See above, nitwit.
The Sorge report reached Stalin in late Sep., 1941; Stalin ordered the
evacuation of moscow in mid October.
Unit tranfers and unit exchanges between east and west had already been
uderway.
Zhukov would have known what he had in terms of troops available - what he
wanted and needed was the onset of the real winter, with it's -20 F
temperautres to disable the Germans.
> As was expalined to you before, this was the first counter-attack launched
> that caught the ill-supplied Germans wearing summer gear in sub-Arctic
> temperatures, with weapons that didn't work in sub-Arctic temperatures,
> and
> trucks and AFVs whose enigines didn't start in sub-Arctic temperatures.
===Again, this is wildly off the mark. The Germans did not wear summer
uniforms at all (any survey of the photos of the period would easily
illustrate this). They did have uniforms and equipment that would
have worked fine in a typical North European winter. The conditions
in December 1941 were quite harsh, but this did not mean that the
German units could not operate. ====
You are a * c l o w n*.
Try staying out in the open in sub-Arctic weather without the right gear,
you idiot, and then we'll be less one usenet retard.
Again, from a prior post this fool couldn't understand:
<snip further rubbish>
ADR
> ===It is clear from the above of your serious confusion about this
> subject. I would suggest that you need to read the information more
> closely and not to assume that those on the other end would eat the
> soup you serve.===
>
> I see that you've abandoned all that nonsense you were putting out about the
> Russian Revolution.
I have not written anything about the Russian revolution. You are
mistaking me with somebody else
> Do you know the definition of the word "conquer" now?
Do you?
>
> ===And those who know the history of WWII know that Zhukov did not know
> what forces he had available to hold Moscow and counter-attack. Not
> at least before Richard Sorge informed Moscow of the Japanese
> intention to launch an attack against the United States and not to
> move against the USSR. ===
>
> Idiot - more brainless parotting of mis-History Channel drivel designed for
> 14 year olds and usenet retards.
>
> I was obviously refering to a *post-war* interview Zhukov gave. He wasn't
> giving real time media interviews in WW2....
> (Post-war, he would have known what he had had in the way of troops, in
> late 1941, at Moscow, right?)
>
> Just to clear some of the fog you're wandering around in, Anastassios...
> Sorge's intelligence report about Japan going south, rather than attacking
> the Sov Union, reached Stalin in late Sep., 1941.
> As stated above, Stalin ordered the evacuation of Moscow in mid October..
> get the significance, dumbass?
> Like, he ordered the evacuation of Moscow 2 or 3 weeks *after* the Sorge
> intelligence report...
OK, I think that this ends right now because, as usual, you have no
idea what you are talking about. First of all, you should read what
the other person writes, not what you want to read.
(a) I did state that the Stavka (the high command) started moving
divisions and creating the reserve only after Sorge's information "was
verified"
(b) Just for your information: the reverse was not under Zhukov's
command. Not until the Stavka gave him command. In fact, as in all
things, Stalin and his generals had a rather tense relationship and he
was not always truthful with them.
(c) ***Stop having this stupid argument with me*** Start arguing with
establish historians in the field.
Now, do you want to hear what they have to say???
"....... The recruitment and training of whole new armies took the
German Command entirely by surprise. It was not the tough winter
conditions that halted the German army but the remarkable revival of
Soviet military manpower after the terrible maulings of summer and
autumn."
"Russia's War" by Richard Overy - Chapter 4, "Between Life and Death:
Leningrad and Moscow"
The works referenced in the paragraph above are:
L. Rotundo "The creation of the Soviet Reserves and the 1941
Campaign", Military Affairs, pp 21-27 (1985)
D. Glanz:"The military strategy of the Soviet Union: a History", -
Appendix I: Soviet mobilization in the Second World War", London, 1981
So, why aren't you taking your argument with Richard Overy and
virtually all military historians of the field????
Why are you arguing still with me???
So, here again, like Hannibal at Cannae, your argument is with the
historians of the period, not with me. Last time, you attacked
Polybius and Livy (as well as modern historians) now it is your time
to pick the fight with Richard Overy, a very distinguished British
historian and professor of history in a variety of universities, a
fellow of the British Academy and a fellow of Kings College. And he
is by no means the only one in this opinion on the battle of Moscow.
So, send him some letters with all the stupidities you have been
posting here.
On the basis of the above, I assume that we are finished here. Maybe
not, one would never know with you. Feel free to vent your
frustration that nobody really understands your intense intellect. In
the future, when I walk away from an argument because I am not
interested in a fight but in a frank and friendly exposition of ideas,
just do not stir the pot.
J Antero
On Dec 17, 6:51 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> ===It is clear from the above of your serious confusion about this
> subject. I would suggest that you need to read the information more
> closely and not to assume that those on the other end would eat the
> soup you serve.===
>
> I see that you've abandoned all that nonsense you were putting out about
> the
> Russian Revolution.
ADR ==I have not written anything about the Russian revolution. You are
mistaking me with somebody else==
Are you mentally functional? Maybe it was some other personality that you
manifest that did write some rubbish on the subject.
Here's what an "ADR" wrote on 12/14, just up-thread:
ADR: " The Czarist
empire, a multiethnic state, was taken over ****through a process of
internal revolution**** by a group, the Bolsheviks, which was as
multiethnic as the state they took over and which had formed and
operated within the said state. "
(ADR was refering to the Russian Revolution, in which Russia was taken over
by Bolsheviks, almost 50 pct of whom were not Russian, and then they went on
to use force on nearby states to include them in the new Soviet state.)
> Do you know the definition of the word "conquer" now?
==Do you?==
Well, it wasn't much of a conquest, but you do seem to be fleeing, or one of
your personalities is, anyway.
> ===And those who know the history of WWII know that Zhukov did not know
> what forces he had available to hold Moscow and counter-attack. Not
> at least before Richard Sorge informed Moscow of the Japanese
> intention to launch an attack against the United States and not to
> move against the USSR. ===
>
> Idiot - more brainless parotting of mis-History Channel drivel designed
> for
> 14 year olds and usenet retards.
>
> I was obviously refering to a *post-war* interview Zhukov gave. He wasn't
> giving real time media interviews in WW2....
> (Post-war, he would have known what he had had in the way of troops, in
> late 1941, at Moscow, right?)
>
> Just to clear some of the fog you're wandering around in, Anastassios...
> Sorge's intelligence report about Japan going south, rather than attacking
> the Sov Union, reached Stalin in late Sep., 1941.
> As stated above, Stalin ordered the evacuation of Moscow in mid October..
> get the significance, dumbass?
> Like, he ordered the evacuation of Moscow 2 or 3 weeks *after* the Sorge
> intelligence report...
===OK, I think that this ends right now because, as usual, you have no
idea what you are talking about. First of all, you should read what
the other person writes, not what you want to read.===
I did, fool, and it was obvious that you didn't have your facts straight,
much less your thinking.
Anastassios, you really must live in some alternative universe.
You accuse me of not reading your gibberish, then you go right ahead and
repeat nonsense that I have already gone to the trouble of discrediting.
===(a) I did state that the Stavka (the high command) started moving
divisions and creating the reserve only after Sorge's information "was
verified"===
Here's what you said, fool, in your 12/17/09 post just above:
"" When this information was verified (Sorge had
warned Moscow about the launching of Barbarossa but he was not
believed), Zhukov was able to withdraw the Siberian divisions and
redeploy them against the Germans in Moscow. ****NOT BEFORE****. ""
In fact, there had been significant transfers and exchanges of Red Army
forces from
the east starting in spring, 1941 (Absolute War, 2007, Bellamy).
And I previously pointed out some common sense logic, *logic* dummy, that
would have indicated that the threat from the japanese to the east was of a
limited non-critical nature, logically indicating that the hard pressed
Soviets would not have felt locked in to keeping a lot of forces out there.
To quote myself in replying to your inane prattling on 12/17:
"" And, any Japanese ground attack by the Kwantung army would have been a
couple thousand miles to the east of any important Soviet
manufacturing/population centers - in the sub-Arctic winter. Did anybody
realy think the Japanese were going to attack into the winter, or that they
had anything to capture that was anywhere near as critical as what the
Germans were threatening?
Little guys with coke bottle lense glasses, trying to wade 2000 miles
westward through twenty-foot snow... hmmm?
In fact, significant Soviet troop movements from the east had begun in the
spring of 1941 - the spring, Einstein. """
So, Anas, you were obviously wrong in pinning transfer westward of eastern
Red Army forces on Sorge's report, which came in late Sep., 1941.
Transfers had already been occurring.
I also had to point out to you, that Stalin ordered the government to
evacuate Moscow 2 or 3 weeks *after* he got the Sorge report.
In other words - his decision to evacuate the government from Moscow, came
*after* the information coming in from Sorge, that you are saying freed up
large new forces for the defense of Moscow, in later 1941.
You won't be able to work through the logical implications of that, will
you, in terms of what the lack of Japanese threat meant to the Soviet
leaderships' confidence about defeating the Germans at Moscow, 1941...
Again, here's what you said: """ When this information was verified
(Sorge had warned Moscow about the launching of Barbarossa but he was not
believed), Zhukov was able to withdraw the Siberian divisions and
redeploy them against the Germans in Moscow. ****NOT BEFORE****. ""
It means that the top leadership of the Sov. Union, did not see Sorge's
report of Japanese intentions as some watershed event, freeing up vast new
forces for the defense of Moscow, as you so lamely keep chanting.
===(b) Just for your information: the reverse was not under Zhukov's
command. Not until the Stavka gave him command. In fact, as in all
things, Stalin and his generals had a rather tense relationship and he
was not always truthful with them.====
Anastassios, you pretend to inform others, who have already demonstrated
that it is you, Anas, who is uninformed, and flailing around in his
confusion.
Einstein, Zhukov was appointed Chief of the General Staff by Stalin just
before the war began, and as such Zhukov was A MEMBER OF STAVKA, when it was
established right after the war started.
Stavka was made up of some political leaders including Stalin, a couple
political generals, an admiral, and the real military leaders of the Red
Army: Marshalls Timoshenko and Zhukov.
The key men on Stavka were Stalin, Timoshenko, AND ZHUKOV.
In your fog, you think Zhukov was some middle level guy, who was under
Stavka and had to make appeals to it.
A little education.
Stavka, through the war, often sent a "representaitve" to oversee important
operations. This was often Grigory Zhukov.
Stalin sent him to Leningrad to stabilize the situation there - he did it.
He was later assigned by Stalin to head the defense of Moscow.
As the man in charge of the defense of Moscow and the key man on Stavka, do
you think he didn't know what forces were available to him?
In effect, Zhukov and his partner, Timoshenko, had to deal with Stalin, who
did interefere in military decisions - but Stavka was not above them - they
were key men in Stavka.
====(c) ***Stop having this stupid argument with me*** ====
Hilarious. Anyone can look up in this thread, and see that this dummy is
even confused about who started this argument - he did - on 12/14/09 by his
ridiculous post to ME. I didn't post to him, initially.
===Start arguing with establish historians in the field.====
Stop watching mis-History Channel, and posting inanities that appear in your
faulty ganglia as epiphanies, dummy.
Try reading Absolute War, 2007, Bellamy. He is professor of history at
Cranfield University.
Try reading Ziemke, Center of Military History, US Army.
==== Now, do you want to hear what they have to say???
"....... The recruitment and training of whole new armies took the
German Command entirely by surprise. It was not the tough winter
conditions that halted the German army but the remarkable revival of
Soviet military manpower after the terrible maulings of summer and
autumn."
"Russia's War" by Richard Overy - Chapter 4, "Between Life and Death:
Leningrad and Moscow"
The works referenced in the paragraph above are:
L. Rotundo "The creation of the Soviet Reserves and the 1941
Campaign", Military Affairs, pp 21-27 (1985)
D. Glanz:"The military strategy of the Soviet Union: a History", -
Appendix I: Soviet mobilization in the Second World War", London, 1981
====
Anas, I think your reliance on the quote you give above gets to the real
problem - you don't have enough sense to find your ass in a dark room.
" The recruitment and training of whole new armies took the German Command
entirely by surprise."
Yes, it did.
OBVIOUSLY - if the Red Army had flat run out of men, then the freezing off
of the
German army's ability to fight would have only have resulted in a lot of
frostbite cases - the weapons and eqipment wouldn't have been needed, so
their dysfunction wouldn't have been relevant.
But if the winter had been very mild, or if the Germans had been well
clothed and equipped for it, then the new soviet forces that were unexpected
may well have been DESTROYED JUST THE RED FORCES HAD BEEN BEFORE WINTER, AND
THEN WERE AGAIN AFTER THE WINTER, dummy.
Don't you get it? I've been pointing it out over and over and over.
I have shown you that the Red Army's two top men, Timoshenko and Zhukov, who
had to know what forces were available to them, WERE THEMSELVES DOING THEIR
PLANNING BASED ON WHAT THE WEATHER WOULD DO TO THE GERMANS.
===So, why aren't you taking your argument with Richard Overy and
virtually all military historians of the field????
Why are you arguing still with me???===
Becasue you posted to me, dummy, that's why.
If Overy and any other authors want to post to me, then I'll tell them the
same fucking thing, dumbass.
It's your problem that you think a history, particularly a history in which
the winning side *HEAVILY controlled and hid information* and HEAVILY
propagandized everything, should be a subject written in stone, not open to
new
information and interpretation.
You're too dumb to absorb what I have shown you with highly reliable cites,
and plain logic of the situation, and adjust your understanding of events.
AGAIN, read this and undestand what it indicates.
Anas: === And when Zhukov unleashed his attack against
the German advance, it was not the winter that caused the German
defeat. ===
Do you think this was the first counter-attack the Red army tried on the
Germans in 1941?
Zhukov in post-war interviews himself stated thta it was not clear if the
Red Army could hold Moscow. Moscow was being evacuated by the government.
Nobody knew better than Zhukov what forces he had avialble for
counter-attack - to Zhukov, it was NOT clear that the Germans could be
stopped.
As was expalined to you before, this was the first counter-attack launched
that caught the ill-supplied Germans wearing summer gear in sub-Arctic
temperatures, with weapons that didn't work in sub-Arctic temperatures, and
trucks and AFVs whose enigines didn't start in sub-Arctic temperatures.
Even with the counter attack, most of the german casualties of the time were
cold related, versus weapons.
By the time of Dec., 1941, the Red Army had captured some German equipment
=== Even if the Germans were excellently provisioned, the
substantial local superiority achieved by the Red Army and the immense
tactical surprise was more than enough to cause the defeat the Army
Group Center. ====
Really? You tried that stupid idea months ago, and I knocked it down then
simply by pointing out that Zhukov in post-war interviews himself stated
thta it was not clear if the Red Army could hold Moscow. Moscow was being
**evacuated** by the government. Nobody knew better than Zhukov what forces
he had avialble for counter-attack - to Zhukov, it was NOT clear that the
Germans could be stopped from getting into Moscow.
This wasn't the first counter attack by the Red Army on the Germans - this
was the first counter-attack launched that caught the ill-supplied Germans
wearing summer gear in sub-Arctic temperatures, with weapons that didn't
work in sub-Arctic temperatures, and trucks and AFVs whose enigines didn't
start in sub-Arctic temperatures.
Tell us, if the winter didn't make any difference, then why when the winter
was over, were the Germans able to go right back to defeating the Red Army
at the outset of Operation Blue?
In spring, 1942, the Red Army tried a surprise offensive on the Germans and
it was destroyed.
Here, again, so maybe the logic of it will sink into what little intellect
you have:
By the time of Dec., 1941, the Red Army had captured some German equipment
Anastassios, if your fellow Macedonian, Alexander, had had your thinking
ability, Darius probably would have wound up in Ireland...
====So, here again, like Hannibal at Cannae, your argument is with the
historians of the period, not with me. Last time, you attacked
Polybius and Livy (as well as modern historians) now it is your time
to pick the fight with Richard Overy, a very distinguished British
historian and professor of history in a variety of universities, a
fellow of the British Academy and a fellow of Kings College. And he
is by no means the only one in this opinion on the battle of Moscow.
So, send him some letters with all the stupidities you have been
posting here.====
Jesus christ, you're in even more of a fog than I thought - you're in a fog,
standng on your head, in a closet..
(He thinks I'm Tiglath, who gave him almost as bad a thrashing on an ancient
battle, as I have here on a modern one.)
HiLarryous. <chuckle>
===On the basis of the above, I assume that we are finished here. ====
Oh yes, you've done so well,, gee, how can I ever recover..... <chcukle>
===Maybe
not, one would never know with you. Feel free to vent your
frustration that nobody really understands your intense intellect. In
the future, when I walk away from an argument because I am not
interested in a fight but in a frank and friendly exposition of ideas,
just do not stir the pot.===
If you were in contact with reality, you would be fully aware of the
definition of "conquer", that I have taught you.
ADR
Blah, blah, blah, blah....
Take up your argument with Richard Overy and many of the other
historians of the battle of Moscow. They are pretty clear (reread the
quote or the whole of the book if you like) that the winter was not a
factor in the German defeat. Just do not try to convince me. Send
your arguments to Richard Overy, care of the British Academy. Spare
us of your blah, blah, blah. Or just publish your own history of the
battle. Or whatever!!!
I am out of here!!
Martin
Thank you.
He's gone very quiet?
J Antero
>>>
>>> I sincerely hope it is not the Blessed Paul Gans you are referring to
>>> here? He will help you even less I fear, having avoided the road to
>>> Damascus, and being supremely pragmatic... and ruthlrddly objective and
>>> honest.
>>>
>>> I have no 'master' in this world (or on SHM, or Usenet) who you can
>>> appeal to Larry, surely you realise this by now?
>>>
>>> I am the Master of my own Destiny... and if you wish me to be the
>>> destroyer of yours, keep up this Sepponic nonsense!
>>
>> Well said.
>
> Thank you.
> He's gone very quiet?
<chuckle>
Maybe the troll is busy trying out for a position as one of Santa's elfs....
J Antero
On Dec 18, 6:05 pm, "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
==Blah, blah, blah, blah....===
More accuratly:
Wah, wah, wah, wah...
===Take up your argument with Richard Overy and many of the other
historians of the battle of Moscow.===
As I mentioned, Anas, he didn't post your nonsense to me - you did.
Besides, don't you remember retreating off your position that winter had
nothing to do with the German defeat at Moscow in late 1941?
It was a very stupid assertion, and it was easily shown to be such, by
reference to competent historians, Ziemke and Bellamy being two.
Why are you re-retreating?
=== They are pretty clear (reread the
quote or the whole of the book if you like) that the winter was not a
factor in the German defeat. Just do not try to convince me. Send
your arguments to Richard Overy, care of the British Academy. Spare
us of your blah, blah, blah. Or just publish your own history of the
battle. Or whatever!!!===
The facts of the time, the timeline of events, and common sense all make it
plain that the Germans lack of supplies, lack of sub-arctic clothing and
widespread malfunction of their weapons and transport crippled them when
sub-arctic temperatures began.
==I am out of here!!===
Ahhh, well, you've promised that before, then retreated, or should I say,
re-retreated.....
After a great day of skiing, I'm not going to let your little tantrum spoil
the glow I have gotten from conquering the well groomed ski trails of a
great Rocky Mountain ski resort, and from conquering your asinine yabberings
about Bolshies and the Battle of Moscow..
Adieu, until your next re-retreat....
Weland
Underbridge.....
J Antero
Well, well, the troll actually recognized that it was he who was being
referred to as such.
You've been shown to be an incompetent pathologic liar.
Get back under your dank bridge.
Martin
Better than being swept away in the river of darkness....
Heh heh!.
.