At what point did Germany lose WW2?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2011

Post by Aida1 » 14 Feb 2023, 15:27

ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 14:30
KDF33 wrote:
13 Feb 2023, 23:49
ljadw wrote:
13 Feb 2023, 22:35
I am not interested in historical contingencies
I don't care whether or not you are 'interested' in historical contingencies.

I am asking you a simple question: Do you believe that historical outcomes, in general, are contingent?

Here is a definition of 'contingent': Occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
I know what your goal is : it is convince people that if certain circumstances happen ,they will cause historical outcomes .
And this is totally wrong .
While there can be a correlation between both (A and B ),it is not so that if B happens, A happens .
Manpower problems do not cause defeats :Britain had manpower problems ,but this did not cause defeat .
Shows again your unwillingness to discuss military history.

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2012

Post by Appleknocker27 » 14 Feb 2023, 18:46

Aida1 wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 09:27
ljadw wrote:
13 Feb 2023, 22:35
I am not interested in historical contingencies which are only attempts to change the outcome of an election,of a war ,...
You are against any historical discussion. The only thing you do is trolling. :roll: :roll:
:thumbsup:
On my screen, he's been posting the same thing for years:
"ljadw, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post."
It makes discussions much easier to read, I recommend it.


KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2013

Post by KDF33 » 14 Feb 2023, 19:16

ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 14:30
I know what your goal is : it is convince people that if certain circumstances happen ,they will cause historical outcomes .
And this is totally wrong .
From an ontological perspective, do you reject causality?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2014

Post by ljadw » 14 Feb 2023, 21:09

Ontology has no place in a discussion about when Germany lost WW2 .
Ontology is philosophy .
About causality : causality does not determine what happens,the theory of causality is a materialist marxist theory that starts from the principle that there is no spirituality on earth and that everything has only material causes .
Example : crime is caused by poverty ,something which is wrong .
And, as I already have said : manpower problems did not cause the collapse of Britain in 1944, thus why should manpower problems cause the collapse of the USSR in 1942 ?
History is not a sum :it is not
A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
etc
There is no determinism,whatever Marx and Wilson (the American Marx) and Obama .... have said.
There can be regularity and patterns in nature (CAN ,but exceptionally ) but there is no regularity and pattern in the actions of human beings ,these are always unpredictable . .
30 years ago Fukuyama said that the fall of communism meant the end of history and the eternal success of American liberal democracy .
History has proved that he was wrong .
To rewrite the outcome of WW2,to say :if Hitler had not done this at Dunkirk, that during the Battle of Britain, X in August 1941,Y before Stalingrad, etc, etc, is only a very suspect wast of time.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2015

Post by ljadw » 14 Feb 2023, 21:20

Aida1 wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 15:27
ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 14:30
KDF33 wrote:
13 Feb 2023, 23:49
ljadw wrote:
13 Feb 2023, 22:35
I am not interested in historical contingencies
I don't care whether or not you are 'interested' in historical contingencies.

I am asking you a simple question: Do you believe that historical outcomes, in general, are contingent?

Here is a definition of 'contingent': Occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
I know what your goal is : it is convince people that if certain circumstances happen ,they will cause historical outcomes .
And this is totally wrong .
While there can be a correlation between both (A and B ),it is not so that if B happens, A happens .
Manpower problems do not cause defeats :Britain had manpower problems ,but this did not cause defeat .
Shows again your unwillingness to discuss military history.
Shows only your desire to change the past .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2016

Post by KDF33 » 14 Feb 2023, 21:44

ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:09
There is no determinism
Indeed. Which is my point: the survival of the USSR was contingent, not deterministic.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2017

Post by Aida1 » 14 Feb 2023, 21:52

ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:20
Aida1 wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 15:27
ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 14:30
KDF33 wrote:
13 Feb 2023, 23:49
ljadw wrote:
13 Feb 2023, 22:35
I am not interested in historical contingencies
I don't care whether or not you are 'interested' in historical contingencies.

I am asking you a simple question: Do you believe that historical outcomes, in general, are contingent?

Here is a definition of 'contingent': Occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
I know what your goal is : it is convince people that if certain circumstances happen ,they will cause historical outcomes .
And this is totally wrong .
While there can be a correlation between both (A and B ),it is not so that if B happens, A happens .
Manpower problems do not cause defeats :Britain had manpower problems ,but this did not cause defeat .
Shows again your unwillingness to discuss military history.
Shows only your desire to change the past .
No but discussing things that could have been one differently is always interesting for anybody seriously interested in history .You have no interest in history.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2018

Post by KDF33 » 14 Feb 2023, 22:11

Aida1 wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:52
No but discussing things that could have been one differently is always interesting for anybody seriously interested in history .You have no interest in history.
I'd say that discussing contingencies (i.e., 'counterfactuals') is necessary to attain an understanding of why things played out as they did.

Without counterfactuals, there is no way to weigh the relative importance of various factors to an outcome. One is then left to do as ljadw does: describe the ultimate outcome, then proclaim its inevitability.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2019

Post by ljadw » 15 Feb 2023, 11:11

KDF33 wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:44
ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:09
There is no determinism
Indeed. Which is my point: the survival of the USSR was contingent, not deterministic.
NO :except for a miracle,Germany could not defeat the USSR . This is a fact . All discussions must start with this premise .
All the rest is the usual attempt to rewrite history .

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 12:24
Location: Russia

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2020

Post by Yuri » 15 Feb 2023, 11:41

ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:09
...
Ontology is philosophy .
About causality : causality does not determine what happens,the theory of causality is a materialist marxist theory that starts from the principle that there is no spirituality on earth and that everything has only material causes .
...
There is no determinism,whatever Marx and Wilson (the American Marx) and Obama .... have said.
There can be regularity and patterns in nature (CAN ,but exceptionally ) but there is no regularity and pattern in the actions of human beings ,these are always unpredictable . .
...
History has proved that he was wrong .
...
Dear Mr. Ljadw, I cannot know whether you are doing this intentionally or unintentionally due to your ignorance or misinterpretation of the fundamentals of Marx's teaching, but the way you present this teaching here, the leader of the world proletariat Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) called "vulgar Marxism".

Further.
Dear mr. ljadw, when you say: "Wilson (or Obama and etc. ) is an American Marx," it's as if You said: "A chimpanzee is a Man."
The similarity of some features of some species of monkeys with human traits does not give reason to consider anthropoid primates as hame sapiens. Similarly, the external similarity of some ideas of some ideologists of financial monopoly capitalism (that is, ideologists of capitalism in its highest stage - the stage of imperialism) does not give grounds to consider them "Marxists".
Wilson and Obama and Biden and etc. is a typical representatives of the financial and industrial ochlocracy, whose power has been rampant in the United States of America for more than 120 years.

====
About Marxism and the sources of this teaching, V. Ul'yanov (Lenin) briefly outlined in the article "Three sources and three components of Marxism"
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Три_источ ... _марксизма

Three sources and three components of Marxism

"Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism" is the title of V. I. Lenin's article, which gives a concise analysis of the historical roots, essence and structure of Marxism. Written in connection with the 30th anniversary of the death of K. Marx. It was first published in the form of an article in the legal journal of the RSDLP(b) "Enlightenment" (1913, No. 3).
One of the favorite quotes used in Soviet propaganda materials (slogans, posters, inscriptions on monuments, etc.) was Lenin's phrase from this article "Marx's teaching is omnipotent because it is true".

Summary of the article
In the introduction, Lenin, arguing with opponents who represent Marxism as a kind of "sect" standing "aside from the pillar road of the development of world civilization," shows that Marx's teaching "arose as a direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy," as "the legitimate successor of the best that humanity created in the XIX century in the face of German philosophy, English political economy, French socialism."
In accordance with this, the sources of Marxism are called:
• German classical philosophy;
• Сlassical English political economy;
• French utopian socialism.

The first section of the article is devoted to philosophy.
Expounding the basics of Marxist philosophy, Lenin focuses on its materialistic nature, noting that it synthesized the best achievements of French materialism of the XVIII century and the philosophy of the German thinker Ludwig Feuerbach. Lenin defines dialectics as the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and free from one-sidedness, the doctrine of the relativity of human knowledge, which gives us a reflection of the ever-evolving matter and marks it as the main acquisition of German classical philosophy, creatively assimilated and developed by Marxism and used by it as a methodology of scientific cognition and revolutionary change of the world. According to the author, materialism acquires a complete character in the system of Marxism and extends to the public sphere. Lenin regards Marx's discovery of the materialistic foundations of social life as one of the greatest achievements of science.

The second section of the article is devoted to the economic doctrine of Marx.
Following him, Lenin gives an assessment of the political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who laid the foundation for the labor theory of value. The author sees the disadvantage of their teachings in the fact that Smith and Ricardo considered the laws of capitalist economics as eternal, and they did not see the relations between people behind the relations of things (see Commodity fetishism) and therefore could not reveal the essence of surplus value. Lenin contrasts the position of English political economists with Marx's doctrine of surplus value, which, according to the author, served as the basis for a comprehensive scientific analysis of the capitalist formation and is the cornerstone of Marx's economic theory.

The third section of the article is devoted to Marx's teaching about socialism.
Noting that before Marx, the utopian socialists gave the most serious criticism of capitalism, Lenin criticizes the weakness of their constructions. Utopian socialism "could neither explain the essence of wage slavery under capitalism, nor discover the laws of its development," did not indicate the forces capable of creating a new society. Lenin contrasts the teachings of utopian socialists with Marx's economic theory and his doctrine of class struggle, which, according to the author, justified the inevitability of the death of capitalism and helped to discover the force that should become its "gravedigger" - the proletarian class. According to Lenin, this class, by virtue of its social position, is able to "sweep away the old and create the new."

Influence
By virtue of its conciseness and didacticism, this article of Lenin was one of the fundamental ones in the system of secondary and higher education of the USSR. Its content was studied in the course "Social Studies" (grades 9-10 of secondary school), and in university programs — as part of the courses "Political Economy" and "Scientific Communism". Since acquaintance with this material began from school years, in colloquial speech, and sometimes in journalism, the work is usually referred to by the first two words — "Three sources" (cf. Adam Smith, "Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations" → "The Wealth of Nations").

Literature
• "Three sources and three components of Marxism" // Lenin V. I. — PSS, vol. 23 (complete works volume 23)
• "Three sources and three components of Marxism" // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: 1974

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 12:24
Location: Russia

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2021

Post by Yuri » 15 Feb 2023, 11:45

It is always necessary to delve into the essence of ideas, not to judge them only by external signs.
For example, here two guys "well-known in narrow circles" sharply criticize the philosopher Professor Ilyin (a Russian nationalist and supporter of European fascism), whose ideas are now professed and actively preached by the current head of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.

Klim Zhukov, Remi Meisner. Denazification of Ilyin, or the practical philosophy of the state of the Russian Federation?


On the chest of the guy (the one with the beard and glasses – his name is Remi Meisner) You see an ornate inscription, which looks very much like a saying from the Koran, made in Arabic script. However, if you look very closely, you will understand that this inscription is actually made in the letters of the Russian alphabet (Cyrillic) and the same saying of the leader of the world proletariat Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) is written there:

"УЧЕНЬЕ МАРКСА ВСЕСИЛЬНО
ПОТОМУ ЧТО ОНО ВЕРНО"
"Marx's teaching is omnipotent
because it is true"



By the way, these guys are supporters of Marxism-Leninism and they criticize the philosophical views of V. Putin and his spiritual teacher, the Russian nationalist Professor Ilyin, from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism. This criticism is very harsh, filled with sarcasm, humor and profanity (that is, obscene expressions). Russian dictionary of obscene words and obscene expressions in volume, if not more, then not much less than the dictionary of ordinary words, so those who do not know the Russian language in full (that is, do not know all the ordinary words and obscene words), they will not understand even half of that what these guys are talking about.

User avatar
Yuri
Member
Posts: 1969
Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 12:24
Location: Russia

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2022

Post by Yuri » 15 Feb 2023, 12:41

KDF33 wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:44
ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:09
There is no determinism
Indeed. Which is my point: the survival of the USSR was contingent, not deterministic.
Determining is the position of the point of view of the one who makes the assessment.
For example, from the point of view of a dung beetle, the whole world is one continuous shit.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2023

Post by ljadw » 15 Feb 2023, 15:18

Yuri wrote:
15 Feb 2023, 11:41
ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:09
...
Ontology is philosophy .
About causality : causality does not determine what happens,the theory of causality is a materialist marxist theory that starts from the principle that there is no spirituality on earth and that everything has only material causes .
...
There is no determinism,whatever Marx and Wilson (the American Marx) and Obama .... have said.
There can be regularity and patterns in nature (CAN ,but exceptionally ) but there is no regularity and pattern in the actions of human beings ,these are always unpredictable . .
...
History has proved that he was wrong .
...
Dear Mr. Ljadw, I cannot know whether you are doing this intentionally or unintentionally due to your ignorance or misinterpretation of the fundamentals of Marx's teaching, but the way you present this teaching here, the leader of the world proletariat Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) called "vulgar Marxism".

Further.
Dear mr. ljadw, when you say: "Wilson (or Obama and etc. ) is an American Marx," it's as if You said: "A chimpanzee is a Man."
The similarity of some features of some species of monkeys with human traits does not give reason to consider anthropoid primates as hame sapiens. Similarly, the external similarity of some ideas of some ideologists of financial monopoly capitalism (that is, ideologists of capitalism in its highest stage - the stage of imperialism) does not give grounds to consider them "Marxists".
Wilson and Obama and Biden and etc. is a typical representatives of the financial and industrial ochlocracy, whose power has been rampant in the United States of America for more than 120 years.

====
About Marxism and the sources of this teaching, V. Ul'yanov (Lenin) briefly outlined in the article "Three sources and three components of Marxism"
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Три_источ ... _марксизма

Three sources and three components of Marxism

"Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism" is the title of V. I. Lenin's article, which gives a concise analysis of the historical roots, essence and structure of Marxism. Written in connection with the 30th anniversary of the death of K. Marx. It was first published in the form of an article in the legal journal of the RSDLP(b) "Enlightenment" (1913, No. 3).
One of the favorite quotes used in Soviet propaganda materials (slogans, posters, inscriptions on monuments, etc.) was Lenin's phrase from this article "Marx's teaching is omnipotent because it is true".

Summary of the article
In the introduction, Lenin, arguing with opponents who represent Marxism as a kind of "sect" standing "aside from the pillar road of the development of world civilization," shows that Marx's teaching "arose as a direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy," as "the legitimate successor of the best that humanity created in the XIX century in the face of German philosophy, English political economy, French socialism."
In accordance with this, the sources of Marxism are called:
• German classical philosophy;
• Сlassical English political economy;
• French utopian socialism.

The first section of the article is devoted to philosophy.
Expounding the basics of Marxist philosophy, Lenin focuses on its materialistic nature, noting that it synthesized the best achievements of French materialism of the XVIII century and the philosophy of the German thinker Ludwig Feuerbach. Lenin defines dialectics as the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and free from one-sidedness, the doctrine of the relativity of human knowledge, which gives us a reflection of the ever-evolving matter and marks it as the main acquisition of German classical philosophy, creatively assimilated and developed by Marxism and used by it as a methodology of scientific cognition and revolutionary change of the world. According to the author, materialism acquires a complete character in the system of Marxism and extends to the public sphere. Lenin regards Marx's discovery of the materialistic foundations of social life as one of the greatest achievements of science.

The second section of the article is devoted to the economic doctrine of Marx.
Following him, Lenin gives an assessment of the political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who laid the foundation for the labor theory of value. The author sees the disadvantage of their teachings in the fact that Smith and Ricardo considered the laws of capitalist economics as eternal, and they did not see the relations between people behind the relations of things (see Commodity fetishism) and therefore could not reveal the essence of surplus value. Lenin contrasts the position of English political economists with Marx's doctrine of surplus value, which, according to the author, served as the basis for a comprehensive scientific analysis of the capitalist formation and is the cornerstone of Marx's economic theory.

The third section of the article is devoted to Marx's teaching about socialism.
Noting that before Marx, the utopian socialists gave the most serious criticism of capitalism, Lenin criticizes the weakness of their constructions. Utopian socialism "could neither explain the essence of wage slavery under capitalism, nor discover the laws of its development," did not indicate the forces capable of creating a new society. Lenin contrasts the teachings of utopian socialists with Marx's economic theory and his doctrine of class struggle, which, according to the author, justified the inevitability of the death of capitalism and helped to discover the force that should become its "gravedigger" - the proletarian class. According to Lenin, this class, by virtue of its social position, is able to "sweep away the old and create the new."

Influence
By virtue of its conciseness and didacticism, this article of Lenin was one of the fundamental ones in the system of secondary and higher education of the USSR. Its content was studied in the course "Social Studies" (grades 9-10 of secondary school), and in university programs — as part of the courses "Political Economy" and "Scientific Communism". Since acquaintance with this material began from school years, in colloquial speech, and sometimes in journalism, the work is usually referred to by the first two words — "Three sources" (cf. Adam Smith, "Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations" → "The Wealth of Nations").

Literature
• "Three sources and three components of Marxism" // Lenin V. I. — PSS, vol. 23 (complete works volume 23)
• "Three sources and three components of Marxism" // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: 1974
Woodrow Wilson is the American Karl Marx :Marx and some of his successors ( Stalin was an exception : he was realist .) wanted to impose his doctrine on the world .
Woodrow Wilson did the same : he believed that the world was dominated by imperialistic powers who oppressed the majority of the people ,but that the US were an exception,that the Declaration of Independence changed the world history and that the US had the mission to impose by force their political and social system . He said that US were fighting to make the world safe for democracy, America's democracy, Woodrow Wilson's democracy . And to achieve this,he was prepared to destroy the political systems in the world ,including this of the US .
The result of the policy of Wilson,FDR,etc is a total failure:you can't impose your political system by force ,Afghanistan showed this to the USSR and to the US .
Communism is dead in Russia , but still exists in the West ,and will never resurrect and the US are bankrupt and its survival is very questionable .
And about Marx especially : he was a German racist (see what Marx and Engels said about the Slavic populations ) and anti-Semite and his doctrine had only some limited success because of the capitalistic Civil War between 1914 and 1918 .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 02:16

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2024

Post by KDF33 » 15 Feb 2023, 20:00

ljadw wrote:
15 Feb 2023, 11:11
NO :except for a miracle,Germany could not defeat the USSR . This is a fact .
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
All discussions must start with this premise .
On the contrary, all discussions should start by examining whether the premise is true.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4506
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: At what point did Germany lose WW2?

#2025

Post by Aida1 » 15 Feb 2023, 21:06

ljadw wrote:
15 Feb 2023, 11:11
KDF33 wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:44
ljadw wrote:
14 Feb 2023, 21:09
There is no determinism
Indeed. Which is my point: the survival of the USSR was contingent, not deterministic.
NO :except for a miracle,Germany could not defeat the USSR . This is a fact . All discussions must start with this premise .
All the rest is the usual attempt to rewrite history .
No. You do not like historical discussions.

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”