History questions not worth their own thread IV

overkill9 said:

Really? Wikipedia, the credible? It was a website that started out as an open-edit open source. Internet wiki is not the most secure of mediums nor most credible due to its lack of comparative oversight.

Let's see, the articles contain many of their citations from only several sources. It is as if someone took a few books than wrote paraphrased summaries of them on subjects that hundreds of books and thousands of research papers have been written on at least. You call this a credible source? This is at best a tertiary references filled by those who are willing, not necessarily those who are qualified.

Click to expand...

So you can't actually point to something wrong in the articles?

Also, 'Invade' Greece? Wrong word used in flimsy hopes of portraying a clearly better side as evil.

Click to expand...

Invasion is a term used by pretty much every book I have on the D-Day campaign, including distinguished authors like Anthony Beevor and Cornelius Ryan. The latter is peppered with them, both in his own usage and in quotes by men who fought on both sides of the campaign. Its one way of distiguishing the type of campaign from an ongoing one such as say Kursk or El Alamein, or separating one campaign from another when they were fought over the same terrain.

If you think the term should not be used I suggest you write your own book or article on the matter and try to persuade people of the scholarly merits of using a different term.

The landing in France had a greater potential payoff, but also carried a bigger risk, as the germans could move their forces more easily against the bridgeheads. By 1943 it was probably too risky, even if the allies had all their stuff ready. By 1944 the germans were weaker, of course.

Click to expand...

This was one part of the British argument, namely that even if sufficient forces could be gathered together to invade the continent in 1943, the lack of combat experience of these troops, along with the lack of experience of planning a major invasion would create major problems. Frankly having read about the landings in the Med recently its a good thing that we didn't go straight into a D-Day style invasion in 1943. The Torch landings were conducted in such a haphazard fashion that you sometimes wonder if anyone planned them at all.

Besides, the Allies simply could not afford to shut down the campaign in the Med and sit on their hands for more than a year.

That said I don't think that invading Greece in 1943 was worthwile, but at the same time I can see why the British chiefs were arguing for an expansion of the Med campaign that resulted in the Torch landings and the campaigns in Sicily and Italy.

Generally I think there was agreement between the Brits and Americans up to that point.

The difference was that the Americans regarded this Mediterranean theater as ancillary. It was necessary only because a landing in France was not feasible in 43, and something had to be done.

The British general staff however, seemed to honestly believe that the Mediterranean could serve as a genuine theater of decision, leading to a destruction of the axis, motivated at least in part by the desire to keep the Soviets out of the Balkans.

The Americans didn't even really have a problem with the troop commitments this would require in Europe. Mainly because a campaign in the Balkans would tie up German troops alongside British ones.

The main problem was that it would tie up so much shipping and landing craft that it would make a landing in France impossible in 1944, and if that wasn't going to happen, the Americans were rightfully ready to call the whole European invasion a farce and go focus on Japan.

r16 said:

the 2006 stuff must be ...

Click to expand...

funnily enough , yesterday a military gang accused of plotting to assassinate the Prime Minister -and the very first one to be broken- was acquitted on the basis of they thought of doing it , but not acted on it . In La-La Land that would look like a coincidence that followed the PM being "rebuffed" in Moscow , and the PM might need an army soon . In real life it is probably a reflection of the war between the congreagation ( that rules the Judiciary ) and the party . In any case the Moscow meeting made a "liberal" happy enough to mock the Goverment on State Channel , though his courage in the matter arises from the West's support for "Liberals" . You know the US State Department , just before the flare up of this Arabian Spring , spent some 5 to 10 million dollars on counter-espionage training for democratically leaned in various Arab countries , and strangely in Turkey .

PCH:

To be honest I got the impression from Atkinson’s books that at the first few Anglo-American meetings in 1942, the American chiefs started off as being against any entanglement in the Med and wanted to go straight for the cross channel assault as soon as it was practical. It was only during those meetings that they came to accept the Med campaign as necessary.

I’d have to check up on that though since I haven’t read his books for a few months, and when I did I listened to them on audiobook.

That was the period of disagreement I was referring to in my last post, which I should perhaps have made clearer. The British chiefs did cling to the idea of the Med being a decisive theatre for far too long though.

Huh...I'd actually be interested to see it, because the only period of this debate I'm familiar with was after the Allied Forces had taken Sicily.

Now I gotta go try and find that old paper I wrote complaining about Operation Roundup.

Fair enough, if I get a chance I'll dig up Atkinson's books and check for you.

overkill9 said:

Funny how army was like that while marines were already kicking out japs from guadacanal from the middle of 1942 with much more diminished resources.

Also, 'Invade' Greece? Wrong word used in flimsy hopes of portraying a clearly better side as evil. Typical cheap words of those who love the revisionist history that suits their own need to insult a nation so that their confused identity has a measure of meaning

Click to expand...

The Marines did not actually kick the Japanese off Guadalcanal. What happened is that the Marines got enough forces on the ground to control the area around the airfield, but the Japanese held other parts of the island, and neither side had the strength to dislodge the other. And so the battle switched to a naval and air war. The air war was also indecisive. But the Japanese were largely able to slow troop and supplies getting to the Marines. The naval battles mattered more. The Japanese won the first 2 of the major naval battles, and that kept the ground forces weakened. But the US won the 3rd naval battle. And after that the Japanese were unable to supply their troops, so they evacuated most of them before a fresh US Army division landed on the island and finished off the remaining Japanese forces.

1942 in the Pacific was a matter of Japanese overextension, an extremely lucky US win at Midway, and bitterly fought attempts to hold the Japanese back in other places.

A year later the story had changed dramatically. But other than the fact that the US was just a hell of a lot bigger and stronger than Japan, you can't really call our performance in the Pacific in 1942 an example of the US being truly ready for war.


My question is, what would the situation have been like if the Allies had launched an invasion of south France around Marseilles in 1943?

privatehudson said:

PCH:

Click to expand...

(It probably says something about my reading habits than when I see "PCH", I instinctively trying to figure out which Communist Party it's referring to. )




(I checked, btw- turns out it's Honduras.)

ParkCungHee said:

So you can't actually point to something wrong in the articles?

Click to expand...

It's like talking to a hamster on a wheel. I point out how articles that need vastly more sources considering the subject material are in fact cobbled together paraphrased amateurish works at best, and he asks me what's wrong with them. If I wrote an article for some no name journal, I would still need more references than using one source for over half of mine like those articles.

If you don't see anything wrong with that picture, you should scram back to learn why it is necessary to read more than a few tertiary source when you research a historical event. This is not supposed to be some undergrad half-ass paper some kid is trying to drum out two days before the deadline by lifting wikipedia.

By your logic, a history book does not need to be more than one or two books, not varying versions of them that give insights into the events from different angles not to mention differing evidence that support assertions of facts and events. Wikipedia is supposedly a knowledgeable source that stands above and beyond regarding its subjects, while this is anything but above and beyond. Sub par and amateur is a better description.

overkill9 said:

It's like talking to a hamster on a wheel.

Click to expand...

That metaphor doesn't really make sense. Why would the fact that the hammer is engaged in repetitive activity make it less receptive to your arguments? Or are you saying that the hamster isn't listening because it's too busy running? Surely you're not claiming that the hamster running is actually a response to your arguments, because that would just be very silly, either on the part of the hamster for thinking that irrelevant and wholly non-verbal activity could constitute a response, or on your part for thinking that the hamster was replying to you when, in fact, it was just running on its wheel. I suggest that you establish a firmer framework for discussion next time you enter into a debate with a hamster, so as to avoid this sort of impasse.

It's pretty effective though.

overkill9 said:

If you don't see anything wrong with that picture, you should scram back to learn why it is necessary to read more than a few tertiary source when you research a historical event. This is not supposed to be some undergrad half-ass paper some kid is trying to drum out two days before the deadline by lifting wikipedia.

Click to expand...

Fair, enough, if you want your contention that the word "invasion" is offensive to be considered, I'll want at least 20 pages, using a dozen sources, three of which must be primary, and one of which must be in Anglo-Saxon.

Which dialect? He doesn't want to throw something from Bede in there and that find out, nope, you're only accepting Wessex.

I must say it's never occurred to me that "invasion" has pejorative implications. To my mind it means simply a situation where a (potentially) hostile force from one power enters territory controlled by another. It's used to refer to actions that are considered Bad (the invasion of France by the Nazis), actions that are considered Good (the invasion of occupied France by the Allies), and those that no-one much cares about either way (the invasion of England by William III).

As for Wikipedia, I share the scepticism regarding its reliability, but it was introduced into this discussion merely as evidence of what the events in question are called - i.e. the only relevant information from Wikipedia was the titles of its articles about those events. Whether the articles themselves are reliable sources or not is irrelevant.

See, for example, Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on the "Allied landings in Europe":

Hitler, while always having to guard against a cross-Channel invasion from England’s shores, had cause to fear that the Anglo-American armies in North Africa might land anywhere on his southern front between Spain and Greece...
Having failed to save its forces in Tunisia, the Axis had only 10 Italian divisions of various sorts and two German panzer units stationed on the island of Sicily at midsummer 1943. The Allies, meanwhile, were preparing to throw some 478,000 men into the island—150,000 of them in the first three days of the invasion...
Furthermore, Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Morgan, who after Casablanca had been designated chief of staff to the Supreme Allied Commander (COSSAC), produced a detailed and realistic plan for the long-envisaged invasion of France from Great Britain...
THE ALLIES’ INVASION OF ITALY...

Click to expand...

And so on.

overkill9 flowchart

LightSpectra said:

overkill9 flowchart

Click to expand...

The third premise needs fixing - as in "make claims based on what one sees from actions of others which no one ever refutes or addresses back other than 'you are a bigot'"

Spending time and effort in any way to make that flow chart - now you amused me.^^

Edit: Of course, what the events are called whether by universality of current times is also irrelevant to the main topic which is whether they are biased or not in an absolute sense. Reason being, 'Invasion' even in casual sense holds an image of much more unwarranted and wrong one-sided aggression by a vastly guiltier party who bears the blame and responsibility for the incident. Whether it is officially defined as such or not becomes secondary as those who use them do not seem to favor a much more neutral words such as campaigns. Anyone can see the difference between general connotations these two vastly different words bring to a conversation. By pointing to absolutely official sources on subjects which we are aware are often more nuanced and subjective amongst everyday conversation, those who seek to create undue bias against a specific event in regards to a nation of which they hold significant subjective bias attempt to excuse their usage of such words by pointing to dictionary definitions while general sentiments and feelings implied with words such as invasion is different and has much more biased implications. You may not feel 'Invasion' has such implications, but in that case I would ask if anyone would think 'Invasion' of france by allies in 1944 would be more correct way to address it rather than "Liberation" of france, in terms of general idea of what would be more appropriate in describing such event in terms of implications those two separate words carry. Once again, those who run to official sources when they themselves are clearly aware of the subjective implications of ideas they claim but foolishly believing anyone would believe their claptrap about 'being unbiased' or 'facts' is really not doing themselves any favors.

Only reason I find anything amusing in that case is people who constantly criticize others for 'facts' and 'evidence' turn to such unreliable source in presenting any outside source. What's most irrelevant is whether it is showing just the names - it is the fact that such a source is pointed to and turned to the first thing to begin with that makes these people's constant hanging onto 'you don't have any good facts' as not just hypocritical and amusing but also very telling.


Separate:
Also, if you would like me to do so, I will have you first tell me why you believe it is, and make those same efforts at sources, evidences, citations and of course twenty eight page readings since you recklessly used it without thinking twice and now trying to falsely believe you are not the one in spotlight about the issue. The burden of responsibility to prove a case began with your thoughtless and biased use of a word, so I suggest you either put something up equal to what you falsely believe can mouth off to others, or you can crawl back to your hole and think twice about using loaded words in false context then trying to once again make obvious excuses.

Do so first, and I will tell you thoroughly why your actions of using general implications of words then running back to textbook definition is a really low way of trying to find a way out to an obvious excuse, with importance of what general connotation holds in a conversation.

taillesskangaru said:

Click to expand...

That's an amusing cartoon. Very nice description of some people. Although if you ask me, I don't really think too much, it's not really that hard to figure out these things at first few glances if you don't have a biased prism attached to your mind already.

Edit:

Source? Or is it a newpaper weekly comic or something.