The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
River-Crossings in European Warfare
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

An important question over the next few days is whether the retreating Russians can stabilize a frontline along one of the major rivers of northeastern Ukraine, most notably the Donets (or Seversky Donets) River and the Oskil River and Reservoir.

If the Russians can’t regroup and hold the line at the north-south Oskol River flowing through Kupyansk, the next north-south river of notable size in northeastern Ukraine is the smaller Aydar, at least half-way back to the Russian border from Kupyansk.

During WWII, river crossings were a sizable challenge for the Allies after D-Day, especially the Rhine. As I’ve mentioned before, the great talking rabbit novel Watership Down is a retelling of the desperate escape by British paratroopers across the Rhine in September 1944 after Operation Market Garden’s attempt to seize nine bridges turned out to be a bridge too far for British armor to reach and link up with the airborne troops.

It took almost another half a year for the Allies to get across the Rhine. On March 7, 1945, the U.S. Army unexpectedly found itself with an opportunity to race across the Rhine at Remagen south of Bonn in the minutes before the Germans could finish blowing up their Ludendorff Bridge. The 1st Army made the most of their chance in a story that’s extremely dramatic even in its Wikipedia recounting.

The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia). It probably would have been even better except that it was being filmed in Czechoslovakia during the Dubcek Summer of 1968, when the Soviets invaded and movie crew had to run for the border.

 
Hide 187 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. • Thanks: SafeNow
    • LOL: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Polistra

    My bad. Turns out she was right. Just look what goes on back in Coach.

    https://i.ibb.co/FhwrvWm/20220911-072527.jpg

    Replies: @Muggles, @Lurker

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Polistra

    LaToya Cantrell = Trolley at Canal.



    https://www.louisianatravel.com/sites/default/files/styles/content_slideshow/public/legacy_images/Streetcar-girls_1.jpg?itok=1mNhUixX

    Replies: @HammerJack

    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Polistra

    LOL, but I think this is just the kind of argument that has been cooked up by her lawyers to try to deflect the charges and at least get some sympathy from some portions of the public.

    It would be interesting to know what official business the mayor of New Orleans had in France and Switzerland that required taking a team of subordinates. Do all mayors in the US have official business in France and Switzerland, or is this something to do with New Orleans being named after the old city of Orleans in France?

    , @RadicalCenter
    @Polistra

    She should be removed from office, fined, prosecuted, and imprisoned. She’s been caught at this effective theft and willfully persists. Aw Haaahl no, sista.

    , @Muggles
    @Polistra

    This was probably a "hair thing."

    Overhead bins and all.

    Don't ask...

  2. US military spent more than a month laying a temporary bridge over the Sava after the 1995 Peace Treaty in Bosnia. The Sad Sacks couldn’t figure it out.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon


    US military spent more than a month laying a temporary bridge over the Sava after the 1995 Peace Treaty in Bosnia. The Sad Sacks couldn’t figure it out.
     
    Might have had better luck at Liberland. No local authorities to get in the way.


    https://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/liberland_map.png
  3. ‘The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia). It probably would have been even better except that it was being filmed in Czechoslovakia during the Dubcek Summer of 1968, when the Soviets invaded and movie crew had to run for the border.’

    That’s a good reason not to support the Russian army.

    • Disagree: michael droy
    • LOL: Polistra
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @bonin

    Since when was Wikipedia a film review site?

    Personally I don't see any difference between Ukraine and Russia except that the former chose to ally with the Gay American Empire against their equally untermensch Russian brothers. Since my primary enemy is the GAE, I have no choice but to hope Russia wins.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    , @Occasional lurker
    @bonin

    The Soviets very much included the Ukrainians. Only western Ukranian nationalists were anti-Soviet, the central and eastern Ukrainians were very much part of the Soviet ruling class. Brezhnev, then I believe leader of the KPDSU, was a Ukrainian. Stalin, by the way, was Georgian. To pretend that Soviet crimes equals Russian crimes is anachronistic propaganda.

    , @Bruce Arney
    @bonin

    Russia was far different 50 years ago.

    , @Wokechoke
    @bonin

    Ukrainian troops did the Prague Job. No lie.

  4. The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @Daniel H

    James Coburn could not convince anyone that he was a German non-commissioned officer. Using American actors to play German roles never works. Justice remains to be done to Willi Heinrich's novel Das Geduldige Fleisch (released in the U.S. as The Cross of Iron).

    As for river crossings, a lot depends on the current and level of the river. I think a lot of rivers in Ukraine are fairly low and slow flowing in autumn.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Daniel H

    I tried to watch Iron Cross once, but kept falling asleep. Maybe it's good. I dunno. Maybe I was just tired.

    The WWII movie that really hit me in the feels was The Victors (1963). I could say it's "anti-war" but that makes it sound kumbaya and faggy when it is actually cynical and wise (hint: the title is ironic, before irony was a plague). Anyway, it appears to be on a bunch of free streaming sites now. I just hope they preserved the subtlety of the original black & white photography.

    , @IHTG
    @Daniel H

    It is a good movie! You gotta love how Peckinpah found a way to get far rightists to approve of an anti-war Marxist film, though.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-8UEogeF8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1oeyH_RmmY

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Anonymous

    , @Feryl
    @Daniel H

    Cross of Iron is watchable, but is pretty dang low budget for a WW2 movie. A Bridge Too Far might be my favorite movie about WW2 (and it's a beautifully photographed movie, Full Metal Jacket and especially Saving Private Ryan really sparked the trend of washed out/desaturated war movie photography which I don't care for).

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @theMann
    @Daniel H

    Tuntematon Sotilas (The Unknown Soldier) is probably the best WWII film. Makes you appreciate just how tough the Finns were.

    I always was partial to Hell is for Heroes; Battle Cry is very good to.

    Kelly's Heroes got butchered in editing, but most people have no idea how much of that sort of thing went on -WWII was a loot driven conflict.


    Russia did a twelve part series of "Life and Fate" that I saw a few years ago. I recollect it being pretty excellent but it is currently unavailable in the USA. (!?) The Russians have made a lot of WWII films lately that try to come to terms with the historical past, which is after all a lot more historical for them than most of us, and some of them are pretty good. They generally have shed the ridiculous Soviet Propagandism of earlier Russian films.

    The most stunning WWII film is Grave of the Fireflies.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    , @Yngvar
    @Daniel H

    There is another reason for those movies:

    After the outbreak of the second world peace American movies became a popular distraction in Europe, but post-war currency controls made repatriating all the cash difficult. Since there were no restrictions on reels, Hollywoods solution to the problem was to spend it making films in Europe, hoping to recoup the money in the North American marked. It worked, with movies set in Europe becoming a genre on its own.

    The James Bond franchise took this business problem solution to its logical end, with the film crews traveling, and emptying bank accounts, all over the world.

    , @Lurker
    @Daniel H

    Yet the supply of WW2 movies has barely ceased. Not as many but still a thing.

    , @Lurker
    @Daniel H

    There was a sequel to the great Cross of Iron (1977), called Breakthrough (1979) this time set in France, which I happened to see on TV quite recently. Didn't even know it existed or that it was a sequel until I'd watched a few minutes. Terrible.


    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078320/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

  5. Was this during the war that was fought for “our freedoms”?

    LOL LOL

    Of course, they were fighting in segregated units. If you had told them they were fighting for leaders who would insist their granddaughters breed with Black men, they would have punched you.

    Tucker said the British Empire was destroyed by WWI and WWII. He was right. That such a thing can be said on national TV is a major sea change. We’re finally getting over the silly WWII worship.

  6. The Bridge at Remagen wasn’t a bad movie. WWII movies of the 50’s* through the early 80’s were better than they are now.

    *I’m including Battleground from 1949. If you haven’t seen it, see it. It’s really good.

    *Except for The Battle of the Bulge – that movie sucked.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Mr. Anon

    Strong disagree on war movies getting worse.

    Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    The Alamo
    Patton
    The Battle of Algiers
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Zulu

    And they are all after 1960.

    I understand tastes differ, but black and white movies with stilted theatrical dialog and weak SFX aren’t for me.

    I’d also say every decade they keep getting better, and 2010-2020 had more good English language war movies than 1900-2000.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Colin Wright

    , @Prester John
    @Mr. Anon

    Robert Shaw was pretty damned good in The Battle of the Bulge though--and kudos to him for employing just enough of a faux German accent for credibility and eschewing the fake, overdone accents that make non-Germans sound silly.

  7. Here we go again. Even though I’m usually Whimmed out of timely participation, these threads are interesting as dissidents like PhysicistDave draw the flak of HA, Jack D, John Johnson, Corvinus, et al.

    But can anyone around here recall any coolly detached posts about Warball preceding Ukraine? It reminds me of how COVID inspired Mr. Sailer’s sudden interest in virology, another field beyond HBD where he has accepted the Establishment narratives.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Greta Handel

    I'm an admiring supporter who gets away posting pretty much anything here without delay, and even I wonder why our host has, as you describe, applied his talents so eagerly to boost those two narratives. It is out of character and suspicious.

    Ostensibly those are just his personal, informed perspectives on those two things.

    In any case, let's keep in mind the possibility that even establishment narratives can be worthy of consideration and even correct some of the time -- and, therefore, let us give Steve the benefit of the doubt.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    , @Pixo
    @Greta Handel

    Mindless reflexive right-wing anti-establishmentarianism is dull and predictable.

    Now if you disagree, you have a lot of places other than iSteve to find this thanks to (1) Russian and Chinese funding of English-language anti-American propaganda; (2) profitable peddling of very overpriced supplements and gold coins.

    Just because antivax and Putinist talking points are censored in some places does not change the fact they are tiresomely omnipresent in most right wing online spaces.

    Lest I seem too critical, let me say I welcomed the Russian-funded English language propaganda and hacking back in 2015-16 when it was (1) pro-Bernie and anti-Hillary (2) pro-Trump and anti-Hillary. I also see the supplement grifting right as good people 95% on my side, and persuadable on the other 5%.

    Ultimately, the same scientific outlook that leads me to reject the establishment’s racial egalitarianism leads me to agree that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. And the same morality that leads me to oppose the brown and black invasion of America leads me to support Ukraine’s defense of its borders.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Greta Handel


    can anyone around here recall any coolly detached posts about Warball preceding Ukraine?
     
    Are you asking if Steve has covered military matters before the this current Ukraine conflict?

    Replies: @Greta Handel

  8. @bonin
    'The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia). It probably would have been even better except that it was being filmed in Czechoslovakia during the Dubcek Summer of 1968, when the Soviets invaded and movie crew had to run for the border.'

    That's a good reason not to support the Russian army.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Occasional lurker, @Bruce Arney, @Wokechoke

    Since when was Wikipedia a film review site?

    Personally I don’t see any difference between Ukraine and Russia except that the former chose to ally with the Gay American Empire against their equally untermensch Russian brothers. Since my primary enemy is the GAE, I have no choice but to hope Russia wins.

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @AndrewR

    "... chose to ally .."

    They didn't have a lot of alternatives.

  9. One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively. Russian air power should have made short work of advancing Ukrainian columns but did not. The Ukrainians should have had air power to harass retreating Russian troops, but no evidence they have really done so. Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI. Apparently we have reached an inflection point where even fairly cheap air defense systems can intimidate pilots from flying low level missions. A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery. Up to now Ukrainians have been held in place by Russian artillery but HIMARS appear to be neutralizing that.

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Evidently, air power is dominant- but only in the case of integrated air-satellite-earth systems. Israelis are bombing parts of Syria, and Syrians/Russians cannot inflict any casualties because they don't possess adequate detection-destruction systems. This is not Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 70s/80s.

    Simply, the war has changed.

    https://www.airforce-technology.com/analysis/future-raf-will-mix-crewed-fighters-uavs-and-swarming-drones-cds/

    Speaking at an International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) virtual event, the head of the UK’s Armed Forces Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) General Sir Nick Carter said that by 2030 a Royal Air Force(RAF) tactical formation could be made of up two Typhoon Fighter Jets, ten Mosquito uncrewed fighter aircraft and 100 Alvino swarming uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs).

    https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/warfare-evolved-drone-swarms/

    Warfare Evolved: Drone Swarms

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev


    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively.
     
    That's an interesting point. I too tend to attribute it to increasingly cheap and effective air defense systems. Even before the present era, even the vaunted US Air Force had to devote enormous effort to suppressing even mediocre air defenses, so expensive aircraft have always been vulnerable to relatively cheaper anti-aircraft, but the USA (and almost only the USA) was wealthy enough to pay the massive premium to overcome that asymmetry.

    I think another factor is the East's (Ukraine + Russia + China(?)) apparent lack of reliable stealth airframes such as the USAF typically uses in early waves as anti-anti-aircraft. Stealth is economically a little peculiar. Like software, it is very expensive to develop, but once developed is relatively cheap to deploy, so crossing this threshold separates the airpower sheep from the airpower goats.

    Also agree that drones are changing the equation, being cheaper in treasure and also in sparing the blood of pilots who are typically commissioned officers and so whose loss is politically more costly than enlisted ranks. The Achilles' Heel of drones would seem to be the com-links—often satellite—the hacking of which would compromise the entire air branch at one stroke, but so far no one has cracked this.


    Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI.
     
    Like with airpower evolution post-WWI, I think we can expect to see the skies of future conflicts to be increasingly filled with drones, and the ground activity increasingly organized around counter-drone measures.

    A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery.
     
    Increasingly widespread and cheap drone technology = increasingly easy to enter the air war = increasingly expensive to protect ground forces = increasing dominance of air presence over ground presence = ground presence increasingly confined to close terrain (woods, jungle, mountain, urban, or literally underground).

    In other words, I think drones are the new effective air power, and they will be even more hazardous to ground forces than the old effective air power was. The Swarm cometh.

    (That Slaughterbot video presents the drone swarm as a hazard to civil life, which it may be, but I think it will be first felt on the battlefield where the swarm will break the Iron (or baser metal) Equation that it takes a man's weight in ammunition to destroy him on the battlefield. In the low-birthrate world, infantry are already the scarce military commodity. When infantry can be massacred at Walmart price-points, what then? Probably war—conflict short of strategic nuclear war—will become increasingly decentralized, increasingly para-military, increasingly indistinguishable from terrorism, organized crime, piracy, politcal activism, political coercion and propaganda, to the extent you don't already consider those things to be a type of warfare.)

    Also note that the navies of the world, meaning foremost the US Navy, seem not to have digested the implications of the coming drone dominance. Future navies will have to be increasingly submarine, and even submarine vessels will be subject to inevitable submarine drone dominance.

    Replies: @Jim Christian, @Anonymous, @Thoughts, @CAJZ

    , @Redneck farmer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    "... if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery". That's the problem; with modern artillery, and more importantly, communications, you can blast advancing troops earlier than in previous years. Most Russian tank losses were caused by artillery, not ATGMs.

  10. @Daniel H
    The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Almost Missouri, @IHTG, @Feryl, @theMann, @Yngvar, @Lurker, @Lurker

    James Coburn could not convince anyone that he was a German non-commissioned officer. Using American actors to play German roles never works. Justice remains to be done to Willi Heinrich’s novel Das Geduldige Fleisch (released in the U.S. as The Cross of Iron).

    As for river crossings, a lot depends on the current and level of the river. I think a lot of rivers in Ukraine are fairly low and slow flowing in autumn.

  11. @Peter Akuleyev
    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively. Russian air power should have made short work of advancing Ukrainian columns but did not. The Ukrainians should have had air power to harass retreating Russian troops, but no evidence they have really done so. Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI. Apparently we have reached an inflection point where even fairly cheap air defense systems can intimidate pilots from flying low level missions. A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery. Up to now Ukrainians have been held in place by Russian artillery but HIMARS appear to be neutralizing that.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Almost Missouri, @Redneck farmer

    Evidently, air power is dominant- but only in the case of integrated air-satellite-earth systems. Israelis are bombing parts of Syria, and Syrians/Russians cannot inflict any casualties because they don’t possess adequate detection-destruction systems. This is not Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 70s/80s.

    Simply, the war has changed.

    https://www.airforce-technology.com/analysis/future-raf-will-mix-crewed-fighters-uavs-and-swarming-drones-cds/

    Speaking at an International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) virtual event, the head of the UK’s Armed Forces Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) General Sir Nick Carter said that by 2030 a Royal Air Force(RAF) tactical formation could be made of up two Typhoon Fighter Jets, ten Mosquito uncrewed fighter aircraft and 100 Alvino swarming uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs).

    https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/warfare-evolved-drone-swarms/

    Warfare Evolved: Drone Swarms

  12. @Daniel H
    The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Almost Missouri, @IHTG, @Feryl, @theMann, @Yngvar, @Lurker, @Lurker

    I tried to watch Iron Cross once, but kept falling asleep. Maybe it’s good. I dunno. Maybe I was just tired.

    The WWII movie that really hit me in the feels was The Victors (1963). I could say it’s “anti-war” but that makes it sound kumbaya and faggy when it is actually cynical and wise (hint: the title is ironic, before irony was a plague). Anyway, it appears to be on a bunch of free streaming sites now. I just hope they preserved the subtlety of the original black & white photography.

  13. The Ukies are wasting troops and materiel building a salient into which the remainder of their troops and materiel will be encircled and slaughtered. Slawa Ukraini.

    Read up on the WW2 battle of Kursk.

    • Agree: JimB
    • Replies: @Muggles
    @The Alarmist


    The Ukies are wasting troops and materiel building a salient into which the remainder of their troops and materiel will be encircled and slaughtered. Slawa Ukraini.
     
    Another iSteve keyboard General prediction.

    Please promise to come back here in a month to tell us how that worked out.

    I agree that these things could occur, but Ukes aren't clueless and Uncle Sam and friends can pretty well tell them when and how the Russians are counter attacking.

    You should assume, as I do, that the military planners on the scene have better maps and understanding of the details than you do. Of course even then they can get it wrong.

    Hitler had little to no air recon on the eastern front in a detailed and timely manner. He ruined the German offensive in Russia by trying to run the war a thousand miles away from maps in a bunker.

    From far away like we are, the logistics details are murky at best. These usually dictate how such things go. Ukes can pull out to avoid encirclement as well. Russians rely mainly on slow and heavy artillery and tanks, needing rail, good roads/bridges and fuel. Bad weather may eventually become a factor as Putin's blitzkrieg grinds to a halt.

    Since both sides are running short on men and material, I predict some sort of ceasefire and negotiated stand-down before any "decisive victories" on either side. In that case, Putin loses.

    Replies: @JimB

    , @Eric Novak
    @The Alarmist

    Yes indeed, the glorious Soros brigades on the march East just found themselves in another Clausewitz cauldron. This is what happens when Sailer and Salon congratulate erstwhile pig feed salesman for “the greatest tactical advance since WWII.”

  14. @Polistra
    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Replies: @Polistra, @Reg Cæsar, @Jonathan Mason, @RadicalCenter, @Muggles

    My bad. Turns out she was right. Just look what goes on back in Coach.

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @Polistra

    Another MAGA terrorist? I don't see the red hat...

    , @Lurker
    @Polistra

    What's she doing on an aircraft? #culturalappropriation

  15. Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side’s army to stop fighting — either because they can’t fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.

    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I’m surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war — WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    • Agree: Emil Nikola Richard
    • Thanks: Kylie, J.Ross
    • Replies: @Thea
    @PhysicistDave

    It is always about territory.


    Western Europe became a vassal state of the USA.

    You can conquer and allow the locals to think they still have a say. Could Canada or Western Europeans have signed a treaty with the USSR that Americans disagreed with?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Anonymous
    @PhysicistDave

    And once the war is won, the victor does what? Takes the loser's territory. The Russians in WWII and the North Vietnamese in Vietnam. The U.S. of course took and ruled Japan after WWII. North Korea in the Korean War at one point seized Seoul.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @PhysicistDave

    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a tactical goal, not a strategic goal.

    Taking territory is generally the best way to stop the opponent from continuing the fight. Deprive them of resources, and room to maneuver and they will not be able to fight. The German army has historically been very good at this.

    Replies: @Renard, @YetAnotherAnon, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Morris39, @PhysicistDave

    , @James B. Shearer
    @PhysicistDave

    "Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight."

    Well in this battle the rapid Ukrainian gain of territory seems to have been a consequence of the opposite side not being willing and/or able to put up much resistance. So you appear to be making a distinction without much difference.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Anonymous
    @PhysicistDave

    I think your analysis is about right. Russia wants to neutralize the globalists encroaching on its border. But they may end up taking some Ukrainian territory as the only way to keep NATO at bay.

    America’s leaders have different aims. They just want to see lots of east Europeans get killed. They’d be happy for this to drag on for 10 years and kill millions of Russians and Ukrainians.

    Of course, they want to weaken Russia because it’s a big white country Christian country that doesn’t kneel to the GAE. And with 6000 nuclear weapons, it may become the de facto leader of all white people in the future.

    So the GAE has no interest in a peaceful solution. That’s the real problem.

    , @Greta Handel
    @PhysicistDave


    most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war
     
    Warball brings out the boys’ sabermetric adolescence. I’ve also Noticed that some of those most enthused about this one don’t seem to have been personally involved beyond the level of Risk or Battleship.
    , @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    @PhysicistDave

    I’m pretty sure Sailer’s interest is in why Kherson was chosen, among all other opportunities on a 1000 km front, to be the location of the Ukrainian counter offensive.

    It isn’t surprising to anyone following these discussions that that would be lost on you.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @James Speaks
    @PhysicistDave

    The Saker likens land war on the plains of the Ukraine to naval warfare where geographic control is not important because dominating the opposing forces is all that matters. In Switzerland, control of a mountain pass with a platoon is more important than a battalion in a valley, but there are no mountain passes in the Ukraine.

    Russia cares about the two Donbas republics, Donetsk and Luhansk, and Crimea. Not so much Kiev.

    , @dearieme
    @PhysicistDave

    Agreed. WWI ended when the German rulers despaired at the effect of so many of their soldiers surrendering on the Western Front. It wasn't that the British and French had become more efficient at killing them. When they successfully drove back the last great German advance, however, lots of German soldiers just gave up.

    , @Pixo
    @PhysicistDave

    “ Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.”


    Dave,

    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest. Remember then, when you posted such bull-diarrhea as:

    “The Russians are in the process of taking Kharkov.”

    “Russian marines have now landed in Odessa.”

    “Russia seems to have stopped the bombardment around Kiev, now that they have taken out local military assets and command and control capabilities…

    I assume they will soon be seizing radio and television broadcast facilities.

    Now, anyone want to bet on how soon Zelensky — the Stephen Colbert of the Ukraine — flees the country?”

    Now there’s nothing wrong about making humiliatingly bad predictions, which you also did. But these were not even correct at the time. No, Russia had never “taken out” Ukraine C&C, and no, Russians never landed marines in Odessa, and no, Russia was never in the process of taking Kharkiv.

    Those three statements were all lies you picked up because you’re a gullible stooge who uncritically spams Putin’s propaganda. Have you no shame sir? Perhaps time for some self reflection?

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @PhysicistDave

    , @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @PhysicistDave

    These are not good analogies: French in Russia, Germans in France in WWI and USSR in WWII, are examples taking enemy territory but not having destroyed the enemy in the field. This requires supplying the army in a hostile territory, and extending the front that's exposed to counterattacks and encirclements.

    The Ukrainians have been able to "pinprick" Russian supply lines just as Soviet partisans had been able to disrupt German supply lines.

    This situation is after an overconfident enemy, having taking vast swath of my own territory but failing to inflict a strategic defeat of my army, and now able to stage counterattacks on my own territory to prolong a stalemate. A better analogy* is-- the Second Sino-Japanese War.

    The Japanese were able to take in 1937-8 the most economically productive regions of China, but failed to destroy the Chinese army in the field and cut off it from outside support.
    https://i.postimg.cc/8PfF91cX/Theaters-of-Chinese-National-Revolutionary-Army.png
    Instead the Chinese launched a counteroffensive in 1939, that even though did not achieve its objectives, caught the Japanese by massive shock, and began planning for a strategic retreat to Manchuria.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939–1940_Winter_Offensive

    But after observing their German ally's victory in France, the Japanese sought to take advantage by advancing into French Indochina and to cut off one of Chiang Kai-shek's last supply routes. This led to an ominous series of escalations as we all know.

    * Historic Parallels between the Ukraine War and the Sino-Japanese War, By Keikichi Takahashi
    https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/historic-parallels-between-the-ukraine-war-and-the-sino-japanese-war/

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Daniel H
    @PhysicistDave


    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.
     
    Tell that to the 100 million browns that have migrated to the USA over the past 40 years, and the 400 million that are anticipating to migrate. Tell them that taking and holding the territory is not conquest.
    , @Gamecock
    @PhysicistDave

    The Yankees are still here, Dave.

    , @Gamecock
    @PhysicistDave

    Dave, can you help me find Saigon on a map? I can't even find South Vietnam.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  16. @Daniel H
    The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Almost Missouri, @IHTG, @Feryl, @theMann, @Yngvar, @Lurker, @Lurker

    It is a good movie! You gotta love how Peckinpah found a way to get far rightists to approve of an anti-war Marxist film, though.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @IHTG

    "an anti-war Marxist film"

    Cross of Iron is now seen as a late career jewel among the booze and cocaine fueled muck of Convoy and The Osterman Weekend. Peckinpah's opinions on war and violence usually fluctuated with what side of the bottle he was on, or the mood of one or more of the women in his life. He was an artist. When the work went well the audience was gifted with a masterpiece, like Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.

    , @Anonymous
    @IHTG

    The haircuts.

  17. If you think river crossings are tough, just wait until you see winter, he he he.

    • Agree: JimB
  18. An anon said —

    On March 8th (American poll);

    1. 38% thought Russia was winning
    2. 28% thought nobody was winning
    3. 14% thought Ukraine was winning

    September 8th:

    1. 42% think neither side is winning.

    2. 22% think Russia is winning.

    3. 17% think Ukriane is winning.

    So despite all the MSM and shilling claiming Ukraine is winning, most Americans never thought Ukraine was winning. And in 6 months, only 3% more Americans think Ukraine is winning than on March 8th.

    https://www.statista.com/chart/28210/share-of-respondents-thinking-russia-ukraine-neither-will-win-the-war/

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/many-americans-see-ukraine-war-stalemate

    Will this impact how Americans vote? Will they be more likely to seek out anti war candidates?

    [I add: recall the finding that American support of Ukraine depended on not knowing anything about it.]

  19. @Peter Akuleyev
    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively. Russian air power should have made short work of advancing Ukrainian columns but did not. The Ukrainians should have had air power to harass retreating Russian troops, but no evidence they have really done so. Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI. Apparently we have reached an inflection point where even fairly cheap air defense systems can intimidate pilots from flying low level missions. A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery. Up to now Ukrainians have been held in place by Russian artillery but HIMARS appear to be neutralizing that.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Almost Missouri, @Redneck farmer

    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively.

    That’s an interesting point. I too tend to attribute it to increasingly cheap and effective air defense systems. Even before the present era, even the vaunted US Air Force had to devote enormous effort to suppressing even mediocre air defenses, so expensive aircraft have always been vulnerable to relatively cheaper anti-aircraft, but the USA (and almost only the USA) was wealthy enough to pay the massive premium to overcome that asymmetry.

    I think another factor is the East’s (Ukraine + Russia + China(?)) apparent lack of reliable stealth airframes such as the USAF typically uses in early waves as anti-anti-aircraft. Stealth is economically a little peculiar. Like software, it is very expensive to develop, but once developed is relatively cheap to deploy, so crossing this threshold separates the airpower sheep from the airpower goats.

    Also agree that drones are changing the equation, being cheaper in treasure and also in sparing the blood of pilots who are typically commissioned officers and so whose loss is politically more costly than enlisted ranks. The Achilles’ Heel of drones would seem to be the com-links—often satellite—the hacking of which would compromise the entire air branch at one stroke, but so far no one has cracked this.

    Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI.

    Like with airpower evolution post-WWI, I think we can expect to see the skies of future conflicts to be increasingly filled with drones, and the ground activity increasingly organized around counter-drone measures.

    A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery.

    Increasingly widespread and cheap drone technology = increasingly easy to enter the air war = increasingly expensive to protect ground forces = increasing dominance of air presence over ground presence = ground presence increasingly confined to close terrain (woods, jungle, mountain, urban, or literally underground).

    In other words, I think drones are the new effective air power, and they will be even more hazardous to ground forces than the old effective air power was. The Swarm cometh.

    (That Slaughterbot video presents the drone swarm as a hazard to civil life, which it may be, but I think it will be first felt on the battlefield where the swarm will break the Iron (or baser metal) Equation that it takes a man’s weight in ammunition to destroy him on the battlefield. In the low-birthrate world, infantry are already the scarce military commodity. When infantry can be massacred at Walmart price-points, what then? Probably war—conflict short of strategic nuclear war—will become increasingly decentralized, increasingly para-military, increasingly indistinguishable from terrorism, organized crime, piracy, politcal activism, political coercion and propaganda, to the extent you don’t already consider those things to be a type of warfare.)

    Also note that the navies of the world, meaning foremost the US Navy, seem not to have digested the implications of the coming drone dominance. Future navies will have to be increasingly submarine, and even submarine vessels will be subject to inevitable submarine drone dominance.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    @Almost Missouri

    You read WAY too much msm and watch too much Hollywood. You seem not to notice our putrid generals haven't won in 70 years in any way but grift. Especially, you know nothing of Russian tactics in this thing. The festivities in last week's offensive cost Ukraine 5000 to 10,000 dead and so many wounded there's no room for them in hospitals clear out to
    Liviv. Watch the meat count from this weekend. If Ukraine can show that they can still move troops into the meat grinder, the billions will flow regardless of unpublished results.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Anonymous
    @Almost Missouri

    Yes, the major weakness of drones is their communications. The first nation to perfect drone AI will dominate the skies.

    , @Thoughts
    @Almost Missouri

    My gut instinct says that Drones are stupid

    They were stupid in the 1980s when we called them 'remote controlled airplanes' And they are stupid now

    I do admit they are Much Scarier Looking in 2022

    But deep deep deep down inside....my gut says...With the exception of Assassinations in 3rd world countries...The Obsession with Drones will Be the Downfall of the Globalist Military

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    , @CAJZ
    @Almost Missouri

    See Youtube Video on hypothetical battle between F35 vs S400.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGwU9HKH_Eo

    It takes from 10x-20x as much aviation capital to take on a single S-400 battery with minimal casualties.

    As for future drone dominance, I think pretty much everyone can see this coming. China's new twin seat model J-20s are pretty much an acknowledgement of this. Manned stealth fighters will primarily become frontline C&C nodes while drones carry the bulk of the ordinance.

  20. That movie clip…not a single black! Hollywood of the ancient times.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Anon

    If that movie was made today, half the Germans would be black, but none would be Nazis.

  21. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    It is always about territory.

    Western Europe became a vassal state of the USA.

    You can conquer and allow the locals to think they still have a say. Could Canada or Western Europeans have signed a treaty with the USSR that Americans disagreed with?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Thea

    Thea wrote to me:


    It is always about territory.
     
    But grabbing territory is not how you win the war: my point was that you win by creating a situation in which the other side's army is either unable or unwilling to fight.

    After that, you may (or may not) choose to grab territory.

    Thea also wrote:

    You can conquer and allow the locals to think they still have a say. Could Canada or Western Europeans have signed a treaty with the USSR that Americans disagreed with?
     
    Of course, the little not-to-be-mentioned secret that you are pointing to is that the other NATO countries are occupied territory, occupied by the US military.

    The fact that their local lapdog elites are happy about that is the norm for empires: the US intervened as needed in their political affairs to make sure the local elites were subservient to the US Deep State.
  22. @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev


    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively.
     
    That's an interesting point. I too tend to attribute it to increasingly cheap and effective air defense systems. Even before the present era, even the vaunted US Air Force had to devote enormous effort to suppressing even mediocre air defenses, so expensive aircraft have always been vulnerable to relatively cheaper anti-aircraft, but the USA (and almost only the USA) was wealthy enough to pay the massive premium to overcome that asymmetry.

    I think another factor is the East's (Ukraine + Russia + China(?)) apparent lack of reliable stealth airframes such as the USAF typically uses in early waves as anti-anti-aircraft. Stealth is economically a little peculiar. Like software, it is very expensive to develop, but once developed is relatively cheap to deploy, so crossing this threshold separates the airpower sheep from the airpower goats.

    Also agree that drones are changing the equation, being cheaper in treasure and also in sparing the blood of pilots who are typically commissioned officers and so whose loss is politically more costly than enlisted ranks. The Achilles' Heel of drones would seem to be the com-links—often satellite—the hacking of which would compromise the entire air branch at one stroke, but so far no one has cracked this.


    Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI.
     
    Like with airpower evolution post-WWI, I think we can expect to see the skies of future conflicts to be increasingly filled with drones, and the ground activity increasingly organized around counter-drone measures.

    A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery.
     
    Increasingly widespread and cheap drone technology = increasingly easy to enter the air war = increasingly expensive to protect ground forces = increasing dominance of air presence over ground presence = ground presence increasingly confined to close terrain (woods, jungle, mountain, urban, or literally underground).

    In other words, I think drones are the new effective air power, and they will be even more hazardous to ground forces than the old effective air power was. The Swarm cometh.

    (That Slaughterbot video presents the drone swarm as a hazard to civil life, which it may be, but I think it will be first felt on the battlefield where the swarm will break the Iron (or baser metal) Equation that it takes a man's weight in ammunition to destroy him on the battlefield. In the low-birthrate world, infantry are already the scarce military commodity. When infantry can be massacred at Walmart price-points, what then? Probably war—conflict short of strategic nuclear war—will become increasingly decentralized, increasingly para-military, increasingly indistinguishable from terrorism, organized crime, piracy, politcal activism, political coercion and propaganda, to the extent you don't already consider those things to be a type of warfare.)

    Also note that the navies of the world, meaning foremost the US Navy, seem not to have digested the implications of the coming drone dominance. Future navies will have to be increasingly submarine, and even submarine vessels will be subject to inevitable submarine drone dominance.

    Replies: @Jim Christian, @Anonymous, @Thoughts, @CAJZ

    You read WAY too much msm and watch too much Hollywood. You seem not to notice our putrid generals haven’t won in 70 years in any way but grift. Especially, you know nothing of Russian tactics in this thing. The festivities in last week’s offensive cost Ukraine 5000 to 10,000 dead and so many wounded there’s no room for them in hospitals clear out to
    Liviv. Watch the meat count from this weekend. If Ukraine can show that they can still move troops into the meat grinder, the billions will flow regardless of unpublished results.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Jim Christian

    Is this reply on the correct comment?

    Replies: @Jim Christian

  23. It appears Ukro made Russian believe they were attacking the South when in fact they were going for the East

    Same Russian did with Kiev

  24. @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev


    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively.
     
    That's an interesting point. I too tend to attribute it to increasingly cheap and effective air defense systems. Even before the present era, even the vaunted US Air Force had to devote enormous effort to suppressing even mediocre air defenses, so expensive aircraft have always been vulnerable to relatively cheaper anti-aircraft, but the USA (and almost only the USA) was wealthy enough to pay the massive premium to overcome that asymmetry.

    I think another factor is the East's (Ukraine + Russia + China(?)) apparent lack of reliable stealth airframes such as the USAF typically uses in early waves as anti-anti-aircraft. Stealth is economically a little peculiar. Like software, it is very expensive to develop, but once developed is relatively cheap to deploy, so crossing this threshold separates the airpower sheep from the airpower goats.

    Also agree that drones are changing the equation, being cheaper in treasure and also in sparing the blood of pilots who are typically commissioned officers and so whose loss is politically more costly than enlisted ranks. The Achilles' Heel of drones would seem to be the com-links—often satellite—the hacking of which would compromise the entire air branch at one stroke, but so far no one has cracked this.


    Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI.
     
    Like with airpower evolution post-WWI, I think we can expect to see the skies of future conflicts to be increasingly filled with drones, and the ground activity increasingly organized around counter-drone measures.

    A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery.
     
    Increasingly widespread and cheap drone technology = increasingly easy to enter the air war = increasingly expensive to protect ground forces = increasing dominance of air presence over ground presence = ground presence increasingly confined to close terrain (woods, jungle, mountain, urban, or literally underground).

    In other words, I think drones are the new effective air power, and they will be even more hazardous to ground forces than the old effective air power was. The Swarm cometh.

    (That Slaughterbot video presents the drone swarm as a hazard to civil life, which it may be, but I think it will be first felt on the battlefield where the swarm will break the Iron (or baser metal) Equation that it takes a man's weight in ammunition to destroy him on the battlefield. In the low-birthrate world, infantry are already the scarce military commodity. When infantry can be massacred at Walmart price-points, what then? Probably war—conflict short of strategic nuclear war—will become increasingly decentralized, increasingly para-military, increasingly indistinguishable from terrorism, organized crime, piracy, politcal activism, political coercion and propaganda, to the extent you don't already consider those things to be a type of warfare.)

    Also note that the navies of the world, meaning foremost the US Navy, seem not to have digested the implications of the coming drone dominance. Future navies will have to be increasingly submarine, and even submarine vessels will be subject to inevitable submarine drone dominance.

    Replies: @Jim Christian, @Anonymous, @Thoughts, @CAJZ

    Yes, the major weakness of drones is their communications. The first nation to perfect drone AI will dominate the skies.

  25. Rivers and mountain passes are natural borders because they are defensible. For passes because attacks are uphill across a narrow front. For rivers, because you have to either swim (slowly) or use a boat (also slowly and obviously) or build a bridge (much slower, and you have to defend it).

    They are also points of dispute. For passes, because attacking is downhill. For rivers because boats re the cheapest way to ship goods, so trade tends to spring up across the river.

    River crossing has been one of the big military problems since spears were the new hotness.

  26. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    And once the war is won, the victor does what? Takes the loser’s territory. The Russians in WWII and the North Vietnamese in Vietnam. The U.S. of course took and ruled Japan after WWII. North Korea in the Korean War at one point seized Seoul.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Anonymous

    Anonymous[213] wrote to me:


    And once the war is won, the victor does what? Takes the loser’s territory.
     
    Sometimes. Sometimes not.

    What did the US seize after Gulf War I?

    But you win the war by creating a situation in which the other side's army either cannot or will not continue to fight.

    After you've won, various options are of course open. How that works out varies from war to war.
  27. Some rule changes were just announced in the MLB:

    Pitch timer, shift restrictions among announced rule changes for ’23
    September 9th, 2022

    PITCH TIMER

    In an effort to create a quicker pace of play, there will be a 30-second timer between batters. Between pitches, there will be a 15-second timer with the bases empty and a 20-second timer with runners on base. At last check, the pitch timer had reduced the average time of game in MiLB by about 26 minutes.

    DEFENSIVE SHIFT LIMITS

    The defensive team must have a minimum of four players on the infield, with at least two infielders completely on either side of second base. These restrictions are intended to increase the batting average on balls in play, to allow infielders to better showcase their athleticism and to restore more traditional outcomes on batted balls.

    – The four infielders must be within the outer boundary of the infield when the pitcher is on the rubber.
    – Infielders may not switch sides. In other words, a team cannot reposition its best defender on the side of the infield the batter is more likely to hit the ball.
    – If the infielders are not aligned properly at the time of the pitch, the offense can choose an automatic ball or the result of the play.
    – This rule does not preclude a team from positioning an outfielder in the infield or in the shallow outfield grass in certain situations. But it does prohibit four-outfielder alignments.

    BIGGER BASES

    The bases, which traditionally have been 15 inches square, will instead be 18 inches square. Home plate is unchanged.

    https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2023-rule-changes-pitch-timer-larger-bases-shifts

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @ginger bread man

    Well, that sucks.

  28. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a tactical goal, not a strategic goal.

    Taking territory is generally the best way to stop the opponent from continuing the fight. Deprive them of resources, and room to maneuver and they will not be able to fight. The German army has historically been very good at this.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer, Muggles
    • Replies: @Renard
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever.
     
    Putin's goal is to prevent Ukraine from becoming an outpost of the Evil Empire and threatening Moscow with short-range missiles etc. Legitimate goal btw.

    Replies: @Dave from Oz

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.


    If Ukraine takes back 1,000 km2 every week, my finger in air calc is that in another 127 weeks the entire Donbass and Crimea will be reoccupied.

    If it takes back 3,000 km2 per week, as the US stooge in Kiev just claimed, it will only take about 40 weeks (at Aug 31 127,484 sq km had been liberated).

    I feel for the civilians in the reoccupied areas, who will doubtless be subject to Bucha-style reprisals. I just hope the Allies were able to evacuate as many as possible.

    , @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Taking enemy territory without destroying enemy in the field has the danger of overextending oneself.

    1. The most impressive Wehrmacht victory in WWII was Westfeldzug (1940) against arguably the best army in the world, was decided before barely any French territory was taken. But rather by trapping and destroying the main French and BEF forces in Benelux.

    2. After Battle of Smolensk (Sep 1941) which Soviets held on for longer than expected, Hitler decided delay the spearhead of Army Group Centre towards Moscow, and to solidify the drive of Army Group South towards Ukraine to secure resources. This was in retrospect considered by many a decisive missed opportunity to catch the Soviet army on its backfoot.

    3. The 1942 German summer offensive Case Blue had the objective of capturing the Volga, but this became to also include the oil fields of Caucasus. The Germans became way too extended and when Soviets counterattacked, the 6th Army retreated forward into Stalingrad rather than backwards.

    4. The main disagreement between Hitler and Manstein was the former insisted on holding every inch of territory where the latter held a more flexible view:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Defense

    Manstein advocated for the 6th Army to breakout of the Stalingrad pocket. Hitler insisted that they hold firm. The end result was the destruction of the 6th Army.

    5. It was the later Soviet summer 1944 counteroffensive, Operatsiya Bagration, that succeed in destroying the enemy, Army Group Centre, in the field, was decisive.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Captain Tripps

    , @Morris39
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Are we going in circles here? To permanently take territory the enemy army must be defeated no question. The aim of a war is to gain control of enemy population including its territory and so increase its own wealth/power/security.
    During a war temporary territory gains/losses are tradeoffs in pursuit of ultimate goal. Am I mistaken that this is that simple an explanation? Too many words?

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to me:


    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself
     
    Well, sometimes the ultimate goal is taking territory, sometimes not. What territory did the US seize after Gulf War I or II? We certainly did not make Iraq the 51st state!

    The ultimate goal of wars varies -- sometimes seizing territory, sometimes not.

    But seizing territory per se is never the key to winning a war. The key to winning is to create a situation in which the other side's army is either unable or unwilling to continue fighting.

    Sometimes that involves seizing territory. Often not.

    How many square miles of German territory did the Allies hold on November 11, 1918? How much Allied territory did the Germans hold?

    And who won?

    Replies: @dimples

  29. Europe is about to plunge into economic catastrophe and civil unrest the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetimes. Do you think you could focus on something a little more important?

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Europe is about to plunge into economic catastrophe and civil unrest the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetimes. Do you think you could focus on something a little more important?
     
    The U.S. is plunging into an economic crisis too. Ignoring it is just a form of escapism. People get stressed out about the approaching economic crisis, so they focus on other things so as not to think about it. For a lot of guys, it might be watching sports or heading down to the strip club or a hundred other things but here it's focusing on a war on the other side of the planet of little actual importance to the U.S. This sticking of everyone's head in the sand like an ostrich and ignoring the approaching economic crisis has led to a thirty trillion-dollar national debt, continued trillion-dollar a year deficits and now rampant inflation from the money printing to cover the yearly deficits.

    If you suggest we spend less money on Ukraine aid the comeback will be "it's not that much money". This is true but this same argument is trotted out for most of the other government programs so nothing ever gets cut. Senator Everett Dirksen supposedly once said, "a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money". If you say the war is not that important to America, the reply will be "if we don't stop them over there then they will be coming over here". I'm old enough to remember when this same argument was used to stay in Vietnam year after year. We eventually left Vietnam and those predictions never came true.

    My prediction now is that we will keep maintaining the current status quo, ignoring the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", until it just becomes impossible to fund all the government programs. This will be followed by large involuntary budget cuts and great suffering for the U.S. population.
  30. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:

    American soldiers didn’t win WW II. As far as America’s role, it was won by our productive capacity and the fact that neither Japan nor Germany could attack the continental US.

    Of course, there was also FDR’s lend lease program to the communists.

    Nobody thought American soldiers were the best. It’s funny all these movies focus on the heroics of soldiers when that had very little to do with winning the war. We still get it with Saving Private Ryan and all that crap.

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    @Anonymous


    American soldiers didn’t win WW II.
     
    Sure they did. They contributed as much of a share as any of the victors. Your point about production is absolutely valid; everybody acknowledges our ability to turn into the main industrial powerhouse of the war, protected by two giant moats that our principal opponents (Japan and Germany) had little capacity to project combat power across into out main homeland.

    Overlord was the largest amphibious assault in human history, but more importantly, the planning, preparation, and positioning of logistics, enabled us to make it STICK.

    Having said all that, the Eastern Front was the largest land conflict in human history. I'm quite aware that GI Ivan and his allies carried the heaviest burden of defeating the Wermacht by far. We, the Brits, Canadians, French, were the supporting effort, and our air power was a critical factor as well. But the Russians did most of the bleeding.
  31. @Peter Akuleyev
    @PhysicistDave

    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a tactical goal, not a strategic goal.

    Taking territory is generally the best way to stop the opponent from continuing the fight. Deprive them of resources, and room to maneuver and they will not be able to fight. The German army has historically been very good at this.

    Replies: @Renard, @YetAnotherAnon, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Morris39, @PhysicistDave

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to prevent Ukraine from becoming an outpost of the Evil Empire and threatening Moscow with short-range missiles etc. Legitimate goal btw.

    • Disagree: Muggles
    • Replies: @Dave from Oz
    @Renard

    Putin's goal is to secure a land route between Russia and Svestapol.

  32. The Ukrainians have thrown up number of pontoon bridges for the Kherson offensive and maintained them in the face of attacks. The last few months the Russians have destroyed enough infrastructure that the Ukrainians have a lot of practice rebuilding old bridges and laying down temporary bridges using a mix of prefabricated concrete forms and steel sections.

    The question is where are those engineering teams and material and how quickly can they deploy those resources to the new offense.

    Loved Watership Down, had no idea on the Market Garden connection.

    The Bridge at Remagen is pretty accurate by Hollywood standards. Littles things. I was surprised how much I liked it. You can tell some of the people involved making the film were vets. Of course in 1969 it seemed almost every man over forty was a WWII vet.

  33. Off topic 21 years later:

    9/11 was completely avoidable….and here is how:

    1)if a National Origins Immigration Policy had been completely in place that completely excluded all Muslims……….9/11 would never have occurred…..

    Now this raises the very obvious questions:

    1)why weren’t all Muslims kicked out of America after 9/11?

    2)Why wasn’t a National Origins Immigration Policy put in place that excluded all Muslims?

    Answer:Because Muslims are being allowed into America so Muslims and their US born Muslim geneline can enthusiastically vote THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN HISTORIC MAJORITY into a violently persecuted white racial minority within the borders of America…..

    HAPPTY 9/11 ANNIVERSITY!!!!……you brought it upon yourselves…….

    The Muslims did 9/11….

    The Muslims did 9/11…

  34. @Peter Akuleyev
    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively. Russian air power should have made short work of advancing Ukrainian columns but did not. The Ukrainians should have had air power to harass retreating Russian troops, but no evidence they have really done so. Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI. Apparently we have reached an inflection point where even fairly cheap air defense systems can intimidate pilots from flying low level missions. A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery. Up to now Ukrainians have been held in place by Russian artillery but HIMARS appear to be neutralizing that.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Almost Missouri, @Redneck farmer

    “… if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery”. That’s the problem; with modern artillery, and more importantly, communications, you can blast advancing troops earlier than in previous years. Most Russian tank losses were caused by artillery, not ATGMs.

  35. anon[263] • Disclaimer says:

    NJP is by far the most important development on the dissident right in decades, yet Stryker disappeared from Ron’s site months ago, and he was the only NJP figure ever linked to here, despite that there are several others of equal import, eg Peinovich, Balogh and Conte.

    This site, eg with all its hasbara commenters, can therefore be considered edgy diversion until that situation changes.

    https://nationaljusticeparty.com/support/

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
  36. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    “Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.”

    Well in this battle the rapid Ukrainian gain of territory seems to have been a consequence of the opposite side not being willing and/or able to put up much resistance. So you appear to be making a distinction without much difference.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @James B. Shearer

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:


    Well in this battle the rapid Ukrainian gain of territory seems to have been a consequence of the opposite side not being willing and/or able to put up much resistance. So you appear to be making a distinction without much difference.
     
    Could be.

    Or could be a clever trap set up by the Russian MoD.

    Or, I strongly suspect, it could just be part of the ebb and flow of war that will not prove to be decisive one way or the other.

    One key point to keep in mind: modern infrastructure -- especially electric power plants and water and sewage treatment plants, but also bridges -- are very much "soft targets" given modern weaponry.

    Putin has not -- yet -- made a systematic effort to take that out across Ukraine.

    But he can.

    He can turn Kiev, Lvov, Odessa, etc. into bigger shitholes even than Jackson, Mississippi.

    The Kremlin still has a lot of cards to play that they have not yet laid on the table.

    Which is why so many of us are morally certain Kiev cannot win this militarily. The most they can hope for is that the Russians just get sick of the whole thing. Which could lead to a negotiated peace.

    Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer, @Sean

  37. Anonymous[190] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    I think your analysis is about right. Russia wants to neutralize the globalists encroaching on its border. But they may end up taking some Ukrainian territory as the only way to keep NATO at bay.

    America’s leaders have different aims. They just want to see lots of east Europeans get killed. They’d be happy for this to drag on for 10 years and kill millions of Russians and Ukrainians.

    Of course, they want to weaken Russia because it’s a big white country Christian country that doesn’t kneel to the GAE. And with 6000 nuclear weapons, it may become the de facto leader of all white people in the future.

    So the GAE has no interest in a peaceful solution. That’s the real problem.

  38. If you have not ever seen the WW2 William Wyler Documentary ” Thunderbolt” its worth watching. Much better than his more famous film “Memphis Belle” it follows US P-47 fighter bombers flying from Corsica to cut German supply lines in Italy. Its in color and is available on Youtube. Here geography was important. The big rivers in Central and Eastern Europe ran north and south but Germany held both banks and the bridges were steel and relatively impervious to aerial bombardment. Hitting a tiny steel ribbon crossing a river from high or medium altitude hard enough to take it down was almost impossible until the 1970’s when laser guided bombs could score direct hits.

    However in Italy moving supplies from North to South required crossing many small river valleys with old, even ancient, stone bridges and with the US having total air supremacy those P-47 Thunderbolts could gather and dive bomb a bridge and just one or two hits with 500 lbs bombs take them down. Then, as Wyler shows, the fun began. Freed of their bomb load the P-47s could get down low and follow train tracks and roads looking for trains, truck convoys or even a guy in a field they didn’t like. With 8 .50 caliber machineguns per P-47 the volume of fire they produced was enormous and the major risk facing the pilots was debris from secondary explosions if they found a munitions truck or train car

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Unit472

    Look up the book "1000 Destroyed" by Grover C. Hall Jr.

    It used to be online, but appears to have been taken down.

  39. The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia).

    IMDb, you mean.

  40. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war

    Warball brings out the boys’ sabermetric adolescence. I’ve also Noticed that some of those most enthused about this one don’t seem to have been personally involved beyond the level of Risk or Battleship.

  41. @Polistra
    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Replies: @Polistra, @Reg Cæsar, @Jonathan Mason, @RadicalCenter, @Muggles

    LaToya Cantrell = Trolley at Canal.

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Reg Cæsar

    When I was a kid back in the 1970s, we rode the New Orleans streetcars, mainly on St Charles Avenue. Even then we were constantly harassed and menaced by negroes. What's going on now is nothing new.

    Nice photo though.

  42. @Anon
    US military spent more than a month laying a temporary bridge over the Sava after the 1995 Peace Treaty in Bosnia. The Sad Sacks couldn’t figure it out.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    US military spent more than a month laying a temporary bridge over the Sava after the 1995 Peace Treaty in Bosnia. The Sad Sacks couldn’t figure it out.

    Might have had better luck at Liberland. No local authorities to get in the way.

  43. @Polistra
    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Replies: @Polistra, @Reg Cæsar, @Jonathan Mason, @RadicalCenter, @Muggles

    LOL, but I think this is just the kind of argument that has been cooked up by her lawyers to try to deflect the charges and at least get some sympathy from some portions of the public.

    It would be interesting to know what official business the mayor of New Orleans had in France and Switzerland that required taking a team of subordinates. Do all mayors in the US have official business in France and Switzerland, or is this something to do with New Orleans being named after the old city of Orleans in France?

  44. The Jan. 1944 failed US effort to cross the Rapido River is the template for the maxim that you can’t invade across a defended river. (it was actually the Gari River but somehow became known as the Rapido Battle). This was approved by Mark Clark, youngest general, known as “the eagle.” (check-out the visage). Softening the debacle was the fact that the Germans had brought-in defenders; the entire purpose of the Italian campaign was to drain enemy forces (just like the Ukraine proxy war – –
    who cares about the territory, just drain baby, drain.

    O/T – Aaron batted leadoff yesterday. He’s within striking distance of the batting title and a triple crown now, and getting more at-bats will help him. He reached base three times per game for seven straight games. The last Yankee to do this was Mickey Mantle in 1957.

  45. @bonin
    'The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia). It probably would have been even better except that it was being filmed in Czechoslovakia during the Dubcek Summer of 1968, when the Soviets invaded and movie crew had to run for the border.'

    That's a good reason not to support the Russian army.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Occasional lurker, @Bruce Arney, @Wokechoke

    The Soviets very much included the Ukrainians. Only western Ukranian nationalists were anti-Soviet, the central and eastern Ukrainians were very much part of the Soviet ruling class. Brezhnev, then I believe leader of the KPDSU, was a Ukrainian. Stalin, by the way, was Georgian. To pretend that Soviet crimes equals Russian crimes is anachronistic propaganda.

  46. OT:

    “King Charles doesn’t have to pay inheritance tax on the Queen’s private estate worth more than \$750 million”

    For everyone saying the monarchy actually saves Britain money.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anon

    "“King Charles doesn’t have to pay inheritance tax on the Queen’s private estate worth more than $750 million”"

    Neither does any oligarch buying a vast estate in the Highlands. No inheritance tax on agricultural land/buildings, ranging from East Anglian wheat prairies to grouse moors or sheep mountains. Like the Balmoral Estate or the Duchy of Cornwall's holdings.

    Some things - like Buck House or the art therein - don't 'belong' to the monarch, Charles can't just sell it to a hotel chain, it's to be passed on. It comes with the job.

    Try again.

  47. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    I’m pretty sure Sailer’s interest is in why Kherson was chosen, among all other opportunities on a 1000 km front, to be the location of the Ukrainian counter offensive.

    It isn’t surprising to anyone following these discussions that that would be lost on you.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    A little girl called SimplePseudonymicHandle wrote to me:


    I’m pretty sure Sailer’s interest is in why Kherson was chosen, among all other opportunities on a 1000 km front, to be the location of the Ukrainian counter offensive.

    It isn’t surprising to anyone following these discussions that that would be lost on you.
     
    Put your dolly aside, little girl. That's a nice girl. Now come here and let me show you a thing called a "map."

    See this area up here in the corner: that is called the "northeast corner" of the "map." And that is the area that nice Mr. Sailer has been talking about, with towns with names like Kupyansk and Kharkov.

    And, you see, Kherson is not in that part of the map at all, little child. It is in a part of the country called "the southwest." Not the part that nice Mr. Sailer was discussing at all.

    Oh, never mind -- go back to playing with your dolly. You may be forty years old, but you will have to just spend your life playing with your little dolly.
  48. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    The Saker likens land war on the plains of the Ukraine to naval warfare where geographic control is not important because dominating the opposing forces is all that matters. In Switzerland, control of a mountain pass with a platoon is more important than a battalion in a valley, but there are no mountain passes in the Ukraine.

    Russia cares about the two Donbas republics, Donetsk and Luhansk, and Crimea. Not so much Kiev.

  49. Echoes of the stirring call to action speech of Gen Washington to his continental army before crossing the Delaware River

    “Men,….get in the boats!”

  50. @Daniel H
    The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Almost Missouri, @IHTG, @Feryl, @theMann, @Yngvar, @Lurker, @Lurker

    Cross of Iron is watchable, but is pretty dang low budget for a WW2 movie. A Bridge Too Far might be my favorite movie about WW2 (and it’s a beautifully photographed movie, Full Metal Jacket and especially Saving Private Ryan really sparked the trend of washed out/desaturated war movie photography which I don’t care for).

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Feryl

    'Cross of Iron is watchable, but is pretty dang low budget for a WW2 movie. A Bridge Too Far might be my favorite movie about WW2 (and it’s a beautifully photographed movie, Full Metal Jacket and especially Saving Private Ryan really sparked the trend of washed out/desaturated war movie photography which I don’t care for).'

    I agree with you about Cross of Iron -- and the low budget doesn't bother me. A Bridge Too Far always struck me as a bit sterile and contrived; it never really takes off. Saving Private Ryan irritates me on a number of scores: most egregiously, in its blatant attempts to justify shooting prisoners. It's not just an inaccurate war film -- that's pretty usual -- but an immoral one.

    It's ironic that you imply Full Metal Jacket is a WW2 movie. It isn't set in the Second World War -- but might as well be. For all the plaudits, there's very little that ties the film specifically to Viet Nam.

    Beyond that? The elderly German The Bridge, the Russian Ballad of a Soldier, the entertaining Kelly's Heroes all have their virtues. The obscure Japanese hagiography of the Kamikazes, For Those Whom We Love, is pretty good. The Norwegian The King's Choice is worth watching -- if not quite a war film. Soldier of Orange is good -- this is what it really means to choose resistance. It's not all Red Dawn and ambushing the evil invader.

    I like Memphis Belle -- I always thought that was overlooked. Tora Tora Tora is great. So's Downfall. The Boat is good overall, but the anti-Nazism and anti-authoritarianism of the officers seems both contrived and implausible. Is Paris Burning is wildly uneven -- but the good scenes will make up for the bits that make you grit your teeth. I'm a sucker for great scores, so the music is probably what carries me through that one.

    The miniseries Band of Brothers and The Pacific are excellent -- as is the also overlooked British Piece of Cake, which chronicles the fortunes of a British fighter squadron from the outbreak of war to the climactic fighting of September 7th, 1940. That one starts fairly slowly but steadily picks up speed. Stick with it through the first two or three episodes and you'll be glad you did.

    Looking over my list, I'd recommend watching Memphis Belle, Downfall, Tora Tora Tora and Piece of Cake in particular if you haven't already. I assume you've already seen Band of Brothers and The Pacific.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Feryl

  51. @Peter Akuleyev
    @PhysicistDave

    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a tactical goal, not a strategic goal.

    Taking territory is generally the best way to stop the opponent from continuing the fight. Deprive them of resources, and room to maneuver and they will not be able to fight. The German army has historically been very good at this.

    Replies: @Renard, @YetAnotherAnon, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Morris39, @PhysicistDave

    Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    If Ukraine takes back 1,000 km2 every week, my finger in air calc is that in another 127 weeks the entire Donbass and Crimea will be reoccupied.

    If it takes back 3,000 km2 per week, as the US stooge in Kiev just claimed, it will only take about 40 weeks (at Aug 31 127,484 sq km had been liberated).

    I feel for the civilians in the reoccupied areas, who will doubtless be subject to Bucha-style reprisals. I just hope the Allies were able to evacuate as many as possible.

  52. ‘…The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia)…’

    Having seen it, I’d say you’ve guessed about right: decent. It’s actually got a great opening scene: American armor races for the bridge as a last train of German wounded attempts to cross.

    Its most conspicuous flaw is that it suffers from an apparent misconception that soldiers can and do endlessly argue about the orders they’re given. That wouldn’t work very well, and in practice, I imagine most realize that. I suppose the error is a function of when the film was made — 1969. Back then, the authorities insisted everyone should question authority.

    It’s no Zulu, but I enjoyed it. If it came on again, and it was free, and I was really at loose ends, I might watch it again.

  53. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    Agreed. WWI ended when the German rulers despaired at the effect of so many of their soldiers surrendering on the Western Front. It wasn’t that the British and French had become more efficient at killing them. When they successfully drove back the last great German advance, however, lots of German soldiers just gave up.

  54. UPDATE – as somebody said, they’re cutting out the middleman

    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3636685-zelensky-to-headline-us-defense-industry-conference/

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will address U.S. defense contractors later this month when he headlines the annual Future Force Capabilities Conference and Exhibition hosted by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA).

    Zelensky is scheduled to speak at the event Sept. 21, according to the program for the event available on the NDIA’s website. Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s minister of defense, is also scheduled to speak that day.

  55. We still have the nazis as world history’s only bad guys.

  56. @Polistra
    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Replies: @Polistra, @Reg Cæsar, @Jonathan Mason, @RadicalCenter, @Muggles

    She should be removed from office, fined, prosecuted, and imprisoned. She’s been caught at this effective theft and willfully persists. Aw Haaahl no, sista.

  57. @Peter Akuleyev
    @PhysicistDave

    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a tactical goal, not a strategic goal.

    Taking territory is generally the best way to stop the opponent from continuing the fight. Deprive them of resources, and room to maneuver and they will not be able to fight. The German army has historically been very good at this.

    Replies: @Renard, @YetAnotherAnon, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Morris39, @PhysicistDave

    Taking enemy territory without destroying enemy in the field has the danger of overextending oneself.

    1. The most impressive Wehrmacht victory in WWII was Westfeldzug (1940) against arguably the best army in the world, was decided before barely any French territory was taken. But rather by trapping and destroying the main French and BEF forces in Benelux.

    2. After Battle of Smolensk (Sep 1941) which Soviets held on for longer than expected, Hitler decided delay the spearhead of Army Group Centre towards Moscow, and to solidify the drive of Army Group South towards Ukraine to secure resources. This was in retrospect considered by many a decisive missed opportunity to catch the Soviet army on its backfoot.

    3. The 1942 German summer offensive Case Blue had the objective of capturing the Volga, but this became to also include the oil fields of Caucasus. The Germans became way too extended and when Soviets counterattacked, the 6th Army retreated forward into Stalingrad rather than backwards.

    4. The main disagreement between Hitler and Manstein was the former insisted on holding every inch of territory where the latter held a more flexible view:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Defense

    Manstein advocated for the 6th Army to breakout of the Stalingrad pocket. Hitler insisted that they hold firm. The end result was the destruction of the 6th Army.

    5. It was the later Soviet summer 1944 counteroffensive, Operatsiya Bagration, that succeed in destroying the enemy, Army Group Centre, in the field, was decisive.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    You are correct, you can conquer territory for tactical reasons or for strategic reasons. Hitler is a good example of a leader who often seemed to confuse tactical and strategic aims.

    Conquering and holding territory is not the only goal in war but for Putin in 2022, it very much is. He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine. As soon as Russian troops leave a piece of Ukrainian territory it immediately reverts to being “Nazi and militarized”. Some commenters here seem to be in denial about that fact. Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @PhysicistDave, @J.Ross

    , @Captain Tripps
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Stalingrad - the Axis ultimately committed 1 Million + forces to the battle, over 400,000 of them Germans. Hard to find reliable sources on accurate figures, but the Germans suffered ~283K casualties, 91K+ as POWs. The Russians were harsh in their treatment; the POWs were forced to conduct foot marches multiple times to various POW camps through the war. The Soviets only returned the 5,000 left alive to Germany in 1955.

    Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

  58. I love the scene where the young officer goes ahead in his jeep and the unseen driver is thinking ‘Oh Shit! Versatile George Segal could do everything pretty good. Like Ted Nugent (there are better guitarists, but they can’t sing).

    This was nicely done by Ukraine especially as the Russian counter attack when it finally arrives will be moving heavy artillery and even heavier truckborne ammunition across a sea of mud .I don’t know what is the matter with the Russians; are they missing their Jewish brainpower who have emigrated?

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @Sean

    "...I don’t know what is the matter with the Russians; .."

    Looks like a couple of things. They have underestimated the Ukrainians. And I suspect there is quite a bit of telling superiors what they want to hear and not rocking the boat. Which can lead to avoidable fiascos.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  59. @bonin
    'The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia). It probably would have been even better except that it was being filmed in Czechoslovakia during the Dubcek Summer of 1968, when the Soviets invaded and movie crew had to run for the border.'

    That's a good reason not to support the Russian army.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Occasional lurker, @Bruce Arney, @Wokechoke

    Russia was far different 50 years ago.

  60. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    “ Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.”

    Dave,

    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest. Remember then, when you posted such bull-diarrhea as:

    “The Russians are in the process of taking Kharkov.”

    “Russian marines have now landed in Odessa.”

    “Russia seems to have stopped the bombardment around Kiev, now that they have taken out local military assets and command and control capabilities…

    I assume they will soon be seizing radio and television broadcast facilities.

    Now, anyone want to bet on how soon Zelensky — the Stephen Colbert of the Ukraine — flees the country?”

    Now there’s nothing wrong about making humiliatingly bad predictions, which you also did. But these were not even correct at the time. No, Russia had never “taken out” Ukraine C&C, and no, Russians never landed marines in Odessa, and no, Russia was never in the process of taking Kharkiv.

    Those three statements were all lies you picked up because you’re a gullible stooge who uncritically spams Putin’s propaganda. Have you no shame sir? Perhaps time for some self reflection?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Pixo

    '...Those three statements were all lies you picked up because you’re a gullible stooge who uncritically spams Putin’s propaganda...'

    As opposed to those who uncritically spam Ukrainian propaganda?

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Pixo

    "Russia appeared to be winning its war of conquest"

    The roots of this conflict stretches back to at least 2014 when Neoconservative elements within the Department of State and CIA-affiliated NGOs removed a Putin-friendly government led by Viktor Yanukovych. EU-puppet Petro Poroshenko was eventually moved aside for U.S. media favorite Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy has a rather vibrant history for a political leader: stand-up comic, Ukraine Dancing with the Stars contestant, enthusiastic drag queen. And on September 21, Zelenskyy is set to make a pitch to the National Defense Industrial Association in Austin. So add MIC shill to his resume. What's most important about Zelenskyy is the milieu from which he was spawned: the organized crime networks controlled by Ukrainian/Israeli billionaires.

    The Russian government had been promised since the end of the Cold War that NATO would remain a defensive organization with zero aspirations to infiltrate the countries on Russia's western and southern borders. That promise was first broken by the government of sterling personality George H.W. Bush while Russia was broken and defiled by operatives of the Western corporate and financial sectors throughout the 1990s.

    If you and the other analysts here are OK with the American espionage machine under the guidance of the cultish followers of Leo Strauss -- who carry the lineage of Trotskyism in their DNA --removing foreign leaders who don't correspond with their supremacist agenda, then just admit you're a useful idiot for these malignant maniacs.

    "Perhaps time for some self reflection?"

    You can start by looking in the mirror.

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Pixo

    My wee little buddy Pixo wrote to me:


    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest.
     
    No: I thought it would be over quickly because I thought Putin would be much more ruthless and much less humane than he has been.

    And because I thought Zelensky would be much more humane and much less ruthless than he has been.

    Putin could easily have knocked out the Ukrainian infrastructure: electric power plants, water and sewage treatment plants, bridges, etc. So far, he has chosen not to do so -- I think because he wants to have friendly relations with the Ukrainian people when the war is over.

    And Zelensky has thrown his people into a meat grinder even though they have no hope of winning this war militarily.

    Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer, @Corvinus

  61. @Feryl
    @Daniel H

    Cross of Iron is watchable, but is pretty dang low budget for a WW2 movie. A Bridge Too Far might be my favorite movie about WW2 (and it's a beautifully photographed movie, Full Metal Jacket and especially Saving Private Ryan really sparked the trend of washed out/desaturated war movie photography which I don't care for).

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Cross of Iron is watchable, but is pretty dang low budget for a WW2 movie. A Bridge Too Far might be my favorite movie about WW2 (and it’s a beautifully photographed movie, Full Metal Jacket and especially Saving Private Ryan really sparked the trend of washed out/desaturated war movie photography which I don’t care for).’

    I agree with you about Cross of Iron — and the low budget doesn’t bother me. A Bridge Too Far always struck me as a bit sterile and contrived; it never really takes off. Saving Private Ryan irritates me on a number of scores: most egregiously, in its blatant attempts to justify shooting prisoners. It’s not just an inaccurate war film — that’s pretty usual — but an immoral one.

    It’s ironic that you imply Full Metal Jacket is a WW2 movie. It isn’t set in the Second World War — but might as well be. For all the plaudits, there’s very little that ties the film specifically to Viet Nam.

    Beyond that? The elderly German The Bridge, the Russian Ballad of a Soldier, the entertaining Kelly’s Heroes all have their virtues. The obscure Japanese hagiography of the Kamikazes, For Those Whom We Love, is pretty good. The Norwegian The King’s Choice is worth watching — if not quite a war film. Soldier of Orange is good — this is what it really means to choose resistance. It’s not all Red Dawn and ambushing the evil invader.

    I like Memphis Belle — I always thought that was overlooked. Tora Tora Tora is great. So’s Downfall. The Boat is good overall, but the anti-Nazism and anti-authoritarianism of the officers seems both contrived and implausible. Is Paris Burning is wildly uneven — but the good scenes will make up for the bits that make you grit your teeth. I’m a sucker for great scores, so the music is probably what carries me through that one.

    The miniseries Band of Brothers and The Pacific are excellent — as is the also overlooked British Piece of Cake, which chronicles the fortunes of a British fighter squadron from the outbreak of war to the climactic fighting of September 7th, 1940. That one starts fairly slowly but steadily picks up speed. Stick with it through the first two or three episodes and you’ll be glad you did.

    Looking over my list, I’d recommend watching Memphis Belle, Downfall, Tora Tora Tora and Piece of Cake in particular if you haven’t already. I assume you’ve already seen Band of Brothers and The Pacific.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Colin Wright

    "The Boat is good overall, but the anti-Nazism and anti-authoritarianism of the officers seems both contrived and implausible."

    When you're the skipper of a steel tube worried about depth charges, crushing pressure, and the mental health of your confined crew, a little give and take is good for morale.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Feryl
    @Colin Wright

    I know FMJ is a Vietnam movie, I was talking about war movies in general and how visually ugly FMJ and SPR are for the genre as a whole (and for all the credit SPR gets for it's pioneering aesthetic, it really was FMJ that was first).

    I believe FMJ was shot almost entirely in Britain, thus explaining the pallor of the white actors and the lack of sunshine. The Green Berets was mocked for shooting a Nam movie in the deep south, but the deep south is far closer to the climate and geography of Vietnam than Britain is.

  62. @Pixo
    @PhysicistDave

    “ Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.”


    Dave,

    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest. Remember then, when you posted such bull-diarrhea as:

    “The Russians are in the process of taking Kharkov.”

    “Russian marines have now landed in Odessa.”

    “Russia seems to have stopped the bombardment around Kiev, now that they have taken out local military assets and command and control capabilities…

    I assume they will soon be seizing radio and television broadcast facilities.

    Now, anyone want to bet on how soon Zelensky — the Stephen Colbert of the Ukraine — flees the country?”

    Now there’s nothing wrong about making humiliatingly bad predictions, which you also did. But these were not even correct at the time. No, Russia had never “taken out” Ukraine C&C, and no, Russians never landed marines in Odessa, and no, Russia was never in the process of taking Kharkiv.

    Those three statements were all lies you picked up because you’re a gullible stooge who uncritically spams Putin’s propaganda. Have you no shame sir? Perhaps time for some self reflection?

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @PhysicistDave

    ‘…Those three statements were all lies you picked up because you’re a gullible stooge who uncritically spams Putin’s propaganda…’

    As opposed to those who uncritically spam Ukrainian propaganda?

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  63. @Peter Akuleyev
    @PhysicistDave

    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a tactical goal, not a strategic goal.

    Taking territory is generally the best way to stop the opponent from continuing the fight. Deprive them of resources, and room to maneuver and they will not be able to fight. The German army has historically been very good at this.

    Replies: @Renard, @YetAnotherAnon, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Morris39, @PhysicistDave

    Are we going in circles here? To permanently take territory the enemy army must be defeated no question. The aim of a war is to gain control of enemy population including its territory and so increase its own wealth/power/security.
    During a war temporary territory gains/losses are tradeoffs in pursuit of ultimate goal. Am I mistaken that this is that simple an explanation? Too many words?

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  64. @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Taking enemy territory without destroying enemy in the field has the danger of overextending oneself.

    1. The most impressive Wehrmacht victory in WWII was Westfeldzug (1940) against arguably the best army in the world, was decided before barely any French territory was taken. But rather by trapping and destroying the main French and BEF forces in Benelux.

    2. After Battle of Smolensk (Sep 1941) which Soviets held on for longer than expected, Hitler decided delay the spearhead of Army Group Centre towards Moscow, and to solidify the drive of Army Group South towards Ukraine to secure resources. This was in retrospect considered by many a decisive missed opportunity to catch the Soviet army on its backfoot.

    3. The 1942 German summer offensive Case Blue had the objective of capturing the Volga, but this became to also include the oil fields of Caucasus. The Germans became way too extended and when Soviets counterattacked, the 6th Army retreated forward into Stalingrad rather than backwards.

    4. The main disagreement between Hitler and Manstein was the former insisted on holding every inch of territory where the latter held a more flexible view:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Defense

    Manstein advocated for the 6th Army to breakout of the Stalingrad pocket. Hitler insisted that they hold firm. The end result was the destruction of the 6th Army.

    5. It was the later Soviet summer 1944 counteroffensive, Operatsiya Bagration, that succeed in destroying the enemy, Army Group Centre, in the field, was decisive.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Captain Tripps

    You are correct, you can conquer territory for tactical reasons or for strategic reasons. Hitler is a good example of a leader who often seemed to confuse tactical and strategic aims.

    Conquering and holding territory is not the only goal in war but for Putin in 2022, it very much is. He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine. As soon as Russian troops leave a piece of Ukrainian territory it immediately reverts to being “Nazi and militarized”. Some commenters here seem to be in denial about that fact. Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.

    • Replies: @216
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Israel has been quite willing to use its expensive F-35s against Iran, Russia has not so far used its token number of SU-57 Felons to destroy the remnants of Ukraine's fast air, nor use them in a SEAD Wild Weasel role.

    It's odd that nationalists are "calling" for an increase in troops, rather than idk, organizing themselves and deploying to the front lines. Do the nationalist and pensioner demographics overlap?

    , @AnotherDad
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.
     
    Imperialists.

    Some of these folks may be nationalists too. But the primary concerns of Russian nationalists would be Russia--Russian fertility, Russian production, affordable family formation for Russians, kicking out the illegals from the 'stans, sending the Chechens back to Chechnya.

    Badgering Ukrainians is something else. Big swinging dickism. Imperialism.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms:


    Conquering and holding territory is not the only goal in war but for Putin in 2022, it very much is.
     
    And you know that how?

    Moscow said their goal was to keep Ukraine out of the US-occupied Empire (AKA NATO) and to enforce the Minsk accords re the Donbass.

    Credible and reasonable goals.

    If Putin really wants to annex Galicia, he is a very stupid man: it would be a disaster.

    And he is not a stupid man.

    Do you have evidence to the contrary?
    , @J.Ross
    @Peter Akuleyev


    He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine.
     
    Americans send forth Americans and American weapons. Putin swats them, then waits for more. Demilitarization = blow up military hardware. Denazification = kill every Ukrainian who points a rifle East.
    This was the first plan; now they also will attack infrastructure. America completely knocks out all civilian infrastructure as our first task (many recent examples). This might've been part of what Putin meant in earlier claims of trying to not target civilians.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  65. Russia’s collapse continues today at the same rapid pace as yesterday.

    It extended to a new smaller front as they were defeated and abandoned positions along the international border around Kharkiv city. This front isn’t contiguous with the other front of Russian collapse and is seen as the top of this map.

  66. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    These are not good analogies: French in Russia, Germans in France in WWI and USSR in WWII, are examples taking enemy territory but not having destroyed the enemy in the field. This requires supplying the army in a hostile territory, and extending the front that’s exposed to counterattacks and encirclements.

    The Ukrainians have been able to “pinprick” Russian supply lines just as Soviet partisans had been able to disrupt German supply lines.

    This situation is after an overconfident enemy, having taking vast swath of my own territory but failing to inflict a strategic defeat of my army, and now able to stage counterattacks on my own territory to prolong a stalemate. A better analogy* is– the Second Sino-Japanese War.

    The Japanese were able to take in 1937-8 the most economically productive regions of China, but failed to destroy the Chinese army in the field and cut off it from outside support.

    Instead the Chinese launched a counteroffensive in 1939, that even though did not achieve its objectives, caught the Japanese by massive shock, and began planning for a strategic retreat to Manchuria.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939–1940_Winter_Offensive

    But after observing their German ally’s victory in France, the Japanese sought to take advantage by advancing into French Indochina and to cut off one of Chiang Kai-shek’s last supply routes. This led to an ominous series of escalations as we all know.

    * Historic Parallels between the Ukraine War and the Sino-Japanese War, By Keikichi Takahashi
    https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/historic-parallels-between-the-ukraine-war-and-the-sino-japanese-war/

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Thanks: J.Ross
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    China Japan and Korea Bromance wrote to me:


    These are not good analogies: French in Russia, Germans in France in WWI and USSR in WWII, are examples taking enemy territory but not having destroyed the enemy in the field. This requires supplying the army in a hostile territory, and extending the front that’s exposed to counterattacks and encirclements.
     
    Well, I did not claim it was an exact analogy, but it does prove that you do not win a war simply by grabbing territory: you win a war by beating the other army -- more precisely,, by creating a situation in which the other army is either unable or unwilling to continue fighting.

    I don't think you disagree with me on that.

    CJK also wrote:

    A better analogy* is– the Second Sino-Japanese War.
     
    And I'll grant that you know more about that example than I do. Thanks for your information.
  67. @Peter Akuleyev
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    You are correct, you can conquer territory for tactical reasons or for strategic reasons. Hitler is a good example of a leader who often seemed to confuse tactical and strategic aims.

    Conquering and holding territory is not the only goal in war but for Putin in 2022, it very much is. He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine. As soon as Russian troops leave a piece of Ukrainian territory it immediately reverts to being “Nazi and militarized”. Some commenters here seem to be in denial about that fact. Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @PhysicistDave, @J.Ross

    Israel has been quite willing to use its expensive F-35s against Iran, Russia has not so far used its token number of SU-57 Felons to destroy the remnants of Ukraine’s fast air, nor use them in a SEAD Wild Weasel role.

    It’s odd that nationalists are “calling” for an increase in troops, rather than idk, organizing themselves and deploying to the front lines. Do the nationalist and pensioner demographics overlap?

  68. The wikipedia article had some interesting points. After the bridge was captured the Germans executed 4 soldiers basically because Hitler was mad although Hitler’s own orders had some responsibility. First after an American bomb had prematurely destroyed a bridge by setting off prepositioned explosive charges Hitler ordered that explosives not be put in place until the last minute and that written orders were required to destroy a bridge. Second Hitler refused to allow his troops to withdraw in relatively good order across the Rhine. These both led to the sort of last minute chaos in which mistakes get made.

    The executions were widely publicized and according to wikipedia led to the Germans blowing up lots of bridges for no good reason in the last days of the war.

  69. Anonymous[954] • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe a more effective strategy would be for Putin to stop calling his soldiers “soldiers,” disarm them, and call them “migrants.”

    In case nobody has noticed, a racially motivated invasion without guns is just a “migration.”

    Mexico has taken over large swaths of entire cities in America, and they’re increasing their “migration” numbers dramatically, post Trump. 4 million since he left office, and still growing.

    Let that… sink in.

    War is just demographics in a hurry. All the ethnicities with an ultimate will to power are doing it. If exploiting stupid people’s retarded value system works, ie “lookit those poor obese immigrants looking for a better life,” of course that’s what the poor passive/aggressive countries will do.

    If you were the head of a country, wouldn’t you want your loser class to leave your country, reducing the chance of revolution, while your losers work in another country and send money back into your economy? What’s not to like?

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • LOL: The Alarmist
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous

    Thanks 954.

    The immivasion is the real battle for Europe.

    Putin's done nothing about the Central Asian illegals flooding Russia ... but pours Russian lives and treasure into his imperialist war on Ukraine. (Yep, more territory is what Russia badly needs.)

    Meanwhile the deep state security apparatus of the West wants everyone jazzed up about Ukraine's borders, while refusing to defend their own borders from the invading hordes looting their nation and destroying their people's, their nation's future.

  70. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    Tell that to the 100 million browns that have migrated to the USA over the past 40 years, and the 400 million that are anticipating to migrate. Tell them that taking and holding the territory is not conquest.

  71. An important question over the next few days is whether the retreating Russians can stabilize a frontline along one of the major rivers of northeastern Ukraine, most notably the Donets (or Seversky Donets) River and the Oskil River and Reservoir.

    It’s interesting, I guess. (I’m definitely not following all this blow-by-blow stuff. I root for Ukrainians because I’m a nationalist and anti-imperialist. But not my country and the result not important to my family or the American nation’s survival.)

    But I don’t know whether it is even important?

    My take is while tanks are rolling across the plains this is very different from the big War. While Putin clearly has some 1914ish imperialist territorial aims, this is a war–like America in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Russians in Afghanistan–where you have a nuclear armed power, operating in another much weaker country attempting to impose its will.

    It seems to me that goal of the weaker nation–or just tribal/political groups–is really just to get the invading super-power to pack its ass up and go home.

    Ukraine has zero chance of actually “defeating” Russia. (All the Putinist nonsense about Ukraine being some sort of “threat” to Russia is just that–nonsense.) What it has to do is convince Putin–or go around Putin and convince the Russian establishment–that they should just make some sort of reasonable deal that leave the Ukrainians free to develop as they wish, including having whatever political/economic links to the EU that they want.

    Maybe pushing the Russians back across this or that river does something to convince the Russian deep state that Putin’s folly is … folly. But mostly I think the Ukrainians just need to keep fighting, keep inflicting losses on the Russians.

    This is very said. These Ukrainian and Russian boys should be home working, marrying their girlfriends and making new Ukrainians and Russians. That’s what these countries need.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @AnotherDad


    It seems to me that goal of the weaker nation–or just tribal/political groups–is really just to get the invading super-power to pack its ass up and go home.

    Ukraine has zero chance of actually “defeating” Russia.
     
    Sure, the same thing with Vietnam and the US.
  72. @Greta Handel
    Here we go again. Even though I’m usually Whimmed out of timely participation, these threads are interesting as dissidents like PhysicistDave draw the flak of HA, Jack D, John Johnson, Corvinus, et al.

    But can anyone around here recall any coolly detached posts about Warball preceding Ukraine? It reminds me of how COVID inspired Mr. Sailer’s sudden interest in virology, another field beyond HBD where he has accepted the Establishment narratives.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Pixo, @Almost Missouri

    I’m an admiring supporter who gets away posting pretty much anything here without delay, and even I wonder why our host has, as you describe, applied his talents so eagerly to boost those two narratives. It is out of character and suspicious.

    Ostensibly those are just his personal, informed perspectives on those two things.

    In any case, let’s keep in mind the possibility that even establishment narratives can be worthy of consideration and even correct some of the time — and, therefore, let us give Steve the benefit of the doubt.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Thanks for confirming my sense that they’re new areas of interest. Not sure what you mean, though, about “giv[ing] Steve the benefit of the doubt.”

    My take is that on COVID and Ukraine he’s chosen to Notice only the overwhelming Establishment propaganda. But I’m here at TUR to learn through the free exchange of ideas. Which isn’t helped when you weren’t allowed to see my last (#7) for eight hours, while others that he agrees with are protected from refutation except by apparent financial supporters.

    His blog, but the man should come clean about the tilted Whimming field. If he would rather I not participate, why not say so?

  73. @Mr. Anon
    The Bridge at Remagen wasn't a bad movie. WWII movies of the 50's* through the early 80's were better than they are now.

    *I'm including Battleground from 1949. If you haven't seen it, see it. It's really good.

    *Except for The Battle of the Bulge - that movie sucked.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Prester John

    Strong disagree on war movies getting worse.

    Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    The Alamo
    Patton
    The Battle of Algiers
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Zulu

    And they are all after 1960.

    I understand tastes differ, but black and white movies with stilted theatrical dialog and weak SFX aren’t for me.

    I’d also say every decade they keep getting better, and 2010-2020 had more good English language war movies than 1900-2000.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Pixo


    Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    I understand tastes differ, but black and white movies with stilted theatrical dialog and weak SFX aren’t for me.
     
    You should expand your viewing:

    Battleground

    12 O'Clock High

    The Desert Fox

    The Dam Busters

    The Blue Max

    Tora, Tora, Tora!

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Pixo

    , @Colin Wright
    @Pixo

    'Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    'The Alamo
    Patton
    The Battle of Algiers
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Zulu'

    Yeah -- but conversely, Dunkirk really pales in retrospect, and the wildly praised 1917
    was really bad. My daughter's hardly a war buff, but even she noticed the improbabilities. It's still unclear to me why that film was ballyhooed.

    Replies: @Pixo

  74. @Anonymous
    Maybe a more effective strategy would be for Putin to stop calling his soldiers "soldiers," disarm them, and call them "migrants."

    In case nobody has noticed, a racially motivated invasion without guns is just a "migration."

    Mexico has taken over large swaths of entire cities in America, and they’re increasing their "migration" numbers dramatically, post Trump. 4 million since he left office, and still growing.

    Let that… sink in.

    War is just demographics in a hurry. All the ethnicities with an ultimate will to power are doing it. If exploiting stupid people's retarded value system works, ie "lookit those poor obese immigrants looking for a better life," of course that’s what the poor passive/aggressive countries will do.

    If you were the head of a country, wouldn’t you want your loser class to leave your country, reducing the chance of revolution, while your losers work in another country and send money back into your economy? What’s not to like?

    https://twitter.com/Klaus_Arminius/status/1568906166037774339?s=20&t=2RK584zhExftxNrugNRaYA

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Thanks 954.

    The immivasion is the real battle for Europe.

    Putin’s done nothing about the Central Asian illegals flooding Russia … but pours Russian lives and treasure into his imperialist war on Ukraine. (Yep, more territory is what Russia badly needs.)

    Meanwhile the deep state security apparatus of the West wants everyone jazzed up about Ukraine’s borders, while refusing to defend their own borders from the invading hordes looting their nation and destroying their people’s, their nation’s future.

    • Agree: Pixo
  75. @Pixo
    @PhysicistDave

    “ Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.”


    Dave,

    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest. Remember then, when you posted such bull-diarrhea as:

    “The Russians are in the process of taking Kharkov.”

    “Russian marines have now landed in Odessa.”

    “Russia seems to have stopped the bombardment around Kiev, now that they have taken out local military assets and command and control capabilities…

    I assume they will soon be seizing radio and television broadcast facilities.

    Now, anyone want to bet on how soon Zelensky — the Stephen Colbert of the Ukraine — flees the country?”

    Now there’s nothing wrong about making humiliatingly bad predictions, which you also did. But these were not even correct at the time. No, Russia had never “taken out” Ukraine C&C, and no, Russians never landed marines in Odessa, and no, Russia was never in the process of taking Kharkiv.

    Those three statements were all lies you picked up because you’re a gullible stooge who uncritically spams Putin’s propaganda. Have you no shame sir? Perhaps time for some self reflection?

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @PhysicistDave

    “Russia appeared to be winning its war of conquest”

    The roots of this conflict stretches back to at least 2014 when Neoconservative elements within the Department of State and CIA-affiliated NGOs removed a Putin-friendly government led by Viktor Yanukovych. EU-puppet Petro Poroshenko was eventually moved aside for U.S. media favorite Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy has a rather vibrant history for a political leader: stand-up comic, Ukraine Dancing with the Stars contestant, enthusiastic drag queen. And on September 21, Zelenskyy is set to make a pitch to the National Defense Industrial Association in Austin. So add MIC shill to his resume. What’s most important about Zelenskyy is the milieu from which he was spawned: the organized crime networks controlled by Ukrainian/Israeli billionaires.

    The Russian government had been promised since the end of the Cold War that NATO would remain a defensive organization with zero aspirations to infiltrate the countries on Russia’s western and southern borders. That promise was first broken by the government of sterling personality George H.W. Bush while Russia was broken and defiled by operatives of the Western corporate and financial sectors throughout the 1990s.

    If you and the other analysts here are OK with the American espionage machine under the guidance of the cultish followers of Leo Strauss — who carry the lineage of Trotskyism in their DNA –removing foreign leaders who don’t correspond with their supremacist agenda, then just admit you’re a useful idiot for these malignant maniacs.

    “Perhaps time for some self reflection?”

    You can start by looking in the mirror.

  76. @Colin Wright
    @Feryl

    'Cross of Iron is watchable, but is pretty dang low budget for a WW2 movie. A Bridge Too Far might be my favorite movie about WW2 (and it’s a beautifully photographed movie, Full Metal Jacket and especially Saving Private Ryan really sparked the trend of washed out/desaturated war movie photography which I don’t care for).'

    I agree with you about Cross of Iron -- and the low budget doesn't bother me. A Bridge Too Far always struck me as a bit sterile and contrived; it never really takes off. Saving Private Ryan irritates me on a number of scores: most egregiously, in its blatant attempts to justify shooting prisoners. It's not just an inaccurate war film -- that's pretty usual -- but an immoral one.

    It's ironic that you imply Full Metal Jacket is a WW2 movie. It isn't set in the Second World War -- but might as well be. For all the plaudits, there's very little that ties the film specifically to Viet Nam.

    Beyond that? The elderly German The Bridge, the Russian Ballad of a Soldier, the entertaining Kelly's Heroes all have their virtues. The obscure Japanese hagiography of the Kamikazes, For Those Whom We Love, is pretty good. The Norwegian The King's Choice is worth watching -- if not quite a war film. Soldier of Orange is good -- this is what it really means to choose resistance. It's not all Red Dawn and ambushing the evil invader.

    I like Memphis Belle -- I always thought that was overlooked. Tora Tora Tora is great. So's Downfall. The Boat is good overall, but the anti-Nazism and anti-authoritarianism of the officers seems both contrived and implausible. Is Paris Burning is wildly uneven -- but the good scenes will make up for the bits that make you grit your teeth. I'm a sucker for great scores, so the music is probably what carries me through that one.

    The miniseries Band of Brothers and The Pacific are excellent -- as is the also overlooked British Piece of Cake, which chronicles the fortunes of a British fighter squadron from the outbreak of war to the climactic fighting of September 7th, 1940. That one starts fairly slowly but steadily picks up speed. Stick with it through the first two or three episodes and you'll be glad you did.

    Looking over my list, I'd recommend watching Memphis Belle, Downfall, Tora Tora Tora and Piece of Cake in particular if you haven't already. I assume you've already seen Band of Brothers and The Pacific.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Feryl

    “The Boat is good overall, but the anti-Nazism and anti-authoritarianism of the officers seems both contrived and implausible.”

    When you’re the skipper of a steel tube worried about depth charges, crushing pressure, and the mental health of your confined crew, a little give and take is good for morale.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @SunBakedSuburb

    'When you’re the skipper of a steel tube worried about depth charges, crushing pressure, and the mental health of your confined crew, a little give and take is good for morale.'

    I just doubt the atmosphere on the (all-volunteer) U-boats -- particularly in 1941 -- was like that.

    For better or worse, I'm convinced Germany was dominated by true believers at that moment in time. A good introduction to the zeitgeist is Seig Heil! The Letters of Tank Gunner Karl Fuchs, 1937-1941. Young Karl was killed outside Moscow in December 1941. No retrospective editing.

    There were several reasons the Germans fought so well. One was that they believed. At no point was this truer than in 1941. In that respect, I say The Boat is peddling comforting crap.

    ...good film otherwise, of course. It'd be interesting, though, to reread the book the film is based on -- Lothar Gunther-Buchheim's The Boat, if I recall aright. It's either a memoir or a fictionalized memoir. I wonder if he portrays the Germans quite as the film does. Were they as skeptical of final victory, as hostile to Nazism as the film would have them?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Peter Akuleyev

  77. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Greta Handel

    I'm an admiring supporter who gets away posting pretty much anything here without delay, and even I wonder why our host has, as you describe, applied his talents so eagerly to boost those two narratives. It is out of character and suspicious.

    Ostensibly those are just his personal, informed perspectives on those two things.

    In any case, let's keep in mind the possibility that even establishment narratives can be worthy of consideration and even correct some of the time -- and, therefore, let us give Steve the benefit of the doubt.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    Thanks for confirming my sense that they’re new areas of interest. Not sure what you mean, though, about “giv[ing] Steve the benefit of the doubt.”

    My take is that on COVID and Ukraine he’s chosen to Notice only the overwhelming Establishment propaganda. But I’m here at TUR to learn through the free exchange of ideas. Which isn’t helped when you weren’t allowed to see my last (#7) for eight hours, while others that he agrees with are protected from refutation except by apparent financial supporters.

    His blog, but the man should come clean about the tilted Whimming field. If he would rather I not participate, why not say so?

    • Agree: BB753
  78. @Greta Handel
    Here we go again. Even though I’m usually Whimmed out of timely participation, these threads are interesting as dissidents like PhysicistDave draw the flak of HA, Jack D, John Johnson, Corvinus, et al.

    But can anyone around here recall any coolly detached posts about Warball preceding Ukraine? It reminds me of how COVID inspired Mr. Sailer’s sudden interest in virology, another field beyond HBD where he has accepted the Establishment narratives.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Pixo, @Almost Missouri

    Mindless reflexive right-wing anti-establishmentarianism is dull and predictable.

    Now if you disagree, you have a lot of places other than iSteve to find this thanks to (1) Russian and Chinese funding of English-language anti-American propaganda; (2) profitable peddling of very overpriced supplements and gold coins.

    Just because antivax and Putinist talking points are censored in some places does not change the fact they are tiresomely omnipresent in most right wing online spaces.

    Lest I seem too critical, let me say I welcomed the Russian-funded English language propaganda and hacking back in 2015-16 when it was (1) pro-Bernie and anti-Hillary (2) pro-Trump and anti-Hillary. I also see the supplement grifting right as good people 95% on my side, and persuadable on the other 5%.

    Ultimately, the same scientific outlook that leads me to reject the establishment’s racial egalitarianism leads me to agree that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. And the same morality that leads me to oppose the brown and black invasion of America leads me to support Ukraine’s defense of its borders.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Pixo

    None of which addresses my #7.

    What do you make of

    • a long-standing dissident public intellectual on HBD

    • who also dabbles in pop culture and sportsball

    • obsessively amplifying Establishment narratives on two subjects in which he’s apparently never shown much interest?

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

  79. @bonin
    'The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia). It probably would have been even better except that it was being filmed in Czechoslovakia during the Dubcek Summer of 1968, when the Soviets invaded and movie crew had to run for the border.'

    That's a good reason not to support the Russian army.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Occasional lurker, @Bruce Arney, @Wokechoke

    Ukrainian troops did the Prague Job. No lie.

  80. @IHTG
    @Daniel H

    It is a good movie! You gotta love how Peckinpah found a way to get far rightists to approve of an anti-war Marxist film, though.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-8UEogeF8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1oeyH_RmmY

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Anonymous

    “an anti-war Marxist film”

    Cross of Iron is now seen as a late career jewel among the booze and cocaine fueled muck of Convoy and The Osterman Weekend. Peckinpah’s opinions on war and violence usually fluctuated with what side of the bottle he was on, or the mood of one or more of the women in his life. He was an artist. When the work went well the audience was gifted with a masterpiece, like Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.

  81. @ginger bread man
    Some rule changes were just announced in the MLB:

    Pitch timer, shift restrictions among announced rule changes for '23
    September 9th, 2022

    PITCH TIMER

    In an effort to create a quicker pace of play, there will be a 30-second timer between batters. Between pitches, there will be a 15-second timer with the bases empty and a 20-second timer with runners on base. At last check, the pitch timer had reduced the average time of game in MiLB by about 26 minutes.

    DEFENSIVE SHIFT LIMITS

    The defensive team must have a minimum of four players on the infield, with at least two infielders completely on either side of second base. These restrictions are intended to increase the batting average on balls in play, to allow infielders to better showcase their athleticism and to restore more traditional outcomes on batted balls.

    - The four infielders must be within the outer boundary of the infield when the pitcher is on the rubber.
    - Infielders may not switch sides. In other words, a team cannot reposition its best defender on the side of the infield the batter is more likely to hit the ball.
    - If the infielders are not aligned properly at the time of the pitch, the offense can choose an automatic ball or the result of the play.
    - This rule does not preclude a team from positioning an outfielder in the infield or in the shallow outfield grass in certain situations. But it does prohibit four-outfielder alignments.

    BIGGER BASES

    The bases, which traditionally have been 15 inches square, will instead be 18 inches square. Home plate is unchanged.
     

    https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2023-rule-changes-pitch-timer-larger-bases-shifts

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    Well, that sucks.

  82. My father in law’s dog was named after a hero of The Battle of the Scheldt:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59197048

    • Replies: @mc23
    @Cortes

    Thankfully Khan is a safe name for a dog.Why people my think he was even named after the present day mayor of London.

    The mascot of the RAF squadron that carried out a heroic attack to destroy major dams in Ruhr Valley was less fortunate.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12148008/what-dambusters-dog-called/

    Replies: @Cortes

  83. @Polistra
    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Replies: @Polistra, @Reg Cæsar, @Jonathan Mason, @RadicalCenter, @Muggles

    This was probably a “hair thing.”

    Overhead bins and all.

    Don’t ask…

  84. @Daniel H
    The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Almost Missouri, @IHTG, @Feryl, @theMann, @Yngvar, @Lurker, @Lurker

    Tuntematon Sotilas (The Unknown Soldier) is probably the best WWII film. Makes you appreciate just how tough the Finns were.

    I always was partial to Hell is for Heroes; Battle Cry is very good to.

    Kelly’s Heroes got butchered in editing, but most people have no idea how much of that sort of thing went on -WWII was a loot driven conflict.

    Russia did a twelve part series of “Life and Fate” that I saw a few years ago. I recollect it being pretty excellent but it is currently unavailable in the USA. (!?) The Russians have made a lot of WWII films lately that try to come to terms with the historical past, which is after all a lot more historical for them than most of us, and some of them are pretty good. They generally have shed the ridiculous Soviet Propagandism of earlier Russian films.

    The most stunning WWII film is Grave of the Fireflies.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @theMann

    They have several films about the meatgrinder battles. one that I enjoyed was about trains during the Leningrad siege. Charming actresses and it dealt with them smuggling a cyclotron out of a lab in Leningrad under aircraft and armored train attack.

    I noticed that in many of the ww2 films they are about desperate defenses and there are lucky charm Mongolians, Siberian’s and Ukbeks in each film. Like they are lucky Buddhas.

    These people don’t need Superhero genres nor fantasy literature about slants and dark hordes or nazguls. They appeared to live it on an industrial scale.

  85. @Peter Akuleyev
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    You are correct, you can conquer territory for tactical reasons or for strategic reasons. Hitler is a good example of a leader who often seemed to confuse tactical and strategic aims.

    Conquering and holding territory is not the only goal in war but for Putin in 2022, it very much is. He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine. As soon as Russian troops leave a piece of Ukrainian territory it immediately reverts to being “Nazi and militarized”. Some commenters here seem to be in denial about that fact. Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @PhysicistDave, @J.Ross

    Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.

    Imperialists.

    Some of these folks may be nationalists too. But the primary concerns of Russian nationalists would be Russia–Russian fertility, Russian production, affordable family formation for Russians, kicking out the illegals from the ‘stans, sending the Chechens back to Chechnya.

    Badgering Ukrainians is something else. Big swinging dickism. Imperialism.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @AnotherDad

    It's more complicated than that. Russia extends beyond the borders of the Russian Federation and the boundaries between Ukraine and Russia have always been hazy:

    https://twitter.com/VeraVanHorne/status/1566098857624223745

    and:
    https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1565770890016657411

    Now you're free to say you don't care about such complications and that's fine. People in charge of our foreign policy are paid to care about such things. They used to but now they're proud not to care anymore. There's a lot of that around now days.

    Replies: @Prester John

  86. @Intelligent Dasein
    Europe is about to plunge into economic catastrophe and civil unrest the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetimes. Do you think you could focus on something a little more important?

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Europe is about to plunge into economic catastrophe and civil unrest the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetimes. Do you think you could focus on something a little more important?

    The U.S. is plunging into an economic crisis too. Ignoring it is just a form of escapism. People get stressed out about the approaching economic crisis, so they focus on other things so as not to think about it. For a lot of guys, it might be watching sports or heading down to the strip club or a hundred other things but here it’s focusing on a war on the other side of the planet of little actual importance to the U.S. This sticking of everyone’s head in the sand like an ostrich and ignoring the approaching economic crisis has led to a thirty trillion-dollar national debt, continued trillion-dollar a year deficits and now rampant inflation from the money printing to cover the yearly deficits.

    If you suggest we spend less money on Ukraine aid the comeback will be “it’s not that much money”. This is true but this same argument is trotted out for most of the other government programs so nothing ever gets cut. Senator Everett Dirksen supposedly once said, “a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money”. If you say the war is not that important to America, the reply will be “if we don’t stop them over there then they will be coming over here”. I’m old enough to remember when this same argument was used to stay in Vietnam year after year. We eventually left Vietnam and those predictions never came true.

    My prediction now is that we will keep maintaining the current status quo, ignoring the saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, until it just becomes impossible to fund all the government programs. This will be followed by large involuntary budget cuts and great suffering for the U.S. population.

  87. @Anon
    That movie clip...not a single black! Hollywood of the ancient times.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    If that movie was made today, half the Germans would be black, but none would be Nazis.

  88. @AnotherDad
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.
     
    Imperialists.

    Some of these folks may be nationalists too. But the primary concerns of Russian nationalists would be Russia--Russian fertility, Russian production, affordable family formation for Russians, kicking out the illegals from the 'stans, sending the Chechens back to Chechnya.

    Badgering Ukrainians is something else. Big swinging dickism. Imperialism.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    It’s more complicated than that. Russia extends beyond the borders of the Russian Federation and the boundaries between Ukraine and Russia have always been hazy:

    and:

    Now you’re free to say you don’t care about such complications and that’s fine. People in charge of our foreign policy are paid to care about such things. They used to but now they’re proud not to care anymore. There’s a lot of that around now days.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @Cagey Beast

    Hazy indeed. In fact, the boundaries of much of Europe have that same characteristic. Just ask the Serbs.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

  89. @AndrewR
    @bonin

    Since when was Wikipedia a film review site?

    Personally I don't see any difference between Ukraine and Russia except that the former chose to ally with the Gay American Empire against their equally untermensch Russian brothers. Since my primary enemy is the GAE, I have no choice but to hope Russia wins.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    “… chose to ally ..”

    They didn’t have a lot of alternatives.

  90. @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev


    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively.
     
    That's an interesting point. I too tend to attribute it to increasingly cheap and effective air defense systems. Even before the present era, even the vaunted US Air Force had to devote enormous effort to suppressing even mediocre air defenses, so expensive aircraft have always been vulnerable to relatively cheaper anti-aircraft, but the USA (and almost only the USA) was wealthy enough to pay the massive premium to overcome that asymmetry.

    I think another factor is the East's (Ukraine + Russia + China(?)) apparent lack of reliable stealth airframes such as the USAF typically uses in early waves as anti-anti-aircraft. Stealth is economically a little peculiar. Like software, it is very expensive to develop, but once developed is relatively cheap to deploy, so crossing this threshold separates the airpower sheep from the airpower goats.

    Also agree that drones are changing the equation, being cheaper in treasure and also in sparing the blood of pilots who are typically commissioned officers and so whose loss is politically more costly than enlisted ranks. The Achilles' Heel of drones would seem to be the com-links—often satellite—the hacking of which would compromise the entire air branch at one stroke, but so far no one has cracked this.


    Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI.
     
    Like with airpower evolution post-WWI, I think we can expect to see the skies of future conflicts to be increasingly filled with drones, and the ground activity increasingly organized around counter-drone measures.

    A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery.
     
    Increasingly widespread and cheap drone technology = increasingly easy to enter the air war = increasingly expensive to protect ground forces = increasing dominance of air presence over ground presence = ground presence increasingly confined to close terrain (woods, jungle, mountain, urban, or literally underground).

    In other words, I think drones are the new effective air power, and they will be even more hazardous to ground forces than the old effective air power was. The Swarm cometh.

    (That Slaughterbot video presents the drone swarm as a hazard to civil life, which it may be, but I think it will be first felt on the battlefield where the swarm will break the Iron (or baser metal) Equation that it takes a man's weight in ammunition to destroy him on the battlefield. In the low-birthrate world, infantry are already the scarce military commodity. When infantry can be massacred at Walmart price-points, what then? Probably war—conflict short of strategic nuclear war—will become increasingly decentralized, increasingly para-military, increasingly indistinguishable from terrorism, organized crime, piracy, politcal activism, political coercion and propaganda, to the extent you don't already consider those things to be a type of warfare.)

    Also note that the navies of the world, meaning foremost the US Navy, seem not to have digested the implications of the coming drone dominance. Future navies will have to be increasingly submarine, and even submarine vessels will be subject to inevitable submarine drone dominance.

    Replies: @Jim Christian, @Anonymous, @Thoughts, @CAJZ

    My gut instinct says that Drones are stupid

    They were stupid in the 1980s when we called them ‘remote controlled airplanes’ And they are stupid now

    I do admit they are Much Scarier Looking in 2022

    But deep deep deep down inside….my gut says…With the exception of Assassinations in 3rd world countries…The Obsession with Drones will Be the Downfall of the Globalist Military

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
    @Thoughts

    Don’t be silly. What do you think Autopilot is? Computer assisted flying etc? It’s very likely that self flying aircraft will be the thing quite soon.

    After 9/11 remote controlled aircraft were armed with missiles for a very good reason.

  91. Meanwhile in US Domestic warfare, anybody want to parse the races on this one.

    http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2022/09/17-year-old-retrieves-shotgun-shoots.html

    As Mr Meatloaf opined, Two out of three ain’t bad.

  92. @Pixo
    @Mr. Anon

    Strong disagree on war movies getting worse.

    Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    The Alamo
    Patton
    The Battle of Algiers
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Zulu

    And they are all after 1960.

    I understand tastes differ, but black and white movies with stilted theatrical dialog and weak SFX aren’t for me.

    I’d also say every decade they keep getting better, and 2010-2020 had more good English language war movies than 1900-2000.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Colin Wright

    Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    I understand tastes differ, but black and white movies with stilted theatrical dialog and weak SFX aren’t for me.

    You should expand your viewing:

    Battleground

    12 O’Clock High

    The Desert Fox

    The Dam Busters

    The Blue Max

    Tora, Tora, Tora!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Mr. Anon

    Oh, and A Bridge Too Far as well.

    , @Pixo
    @Mr. Anon

    Assuming The Desert Fox is about Rommel I will give that a shot.

  93. @Cortes
    My father in law’s dog was named after a hero of The Battle of the Scheldt:


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59197048

    Replies: @mc23

    Thankfully Khan is a safe name for a dog.Why people my think he was even named after the present day mayor of London.

    The mascot of the RAF squadron that carried out a heroic attack to destroy major dams in Ruhr Valley was less fortunate.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12148008/what-dambusters-dog-called/

    • Replies: @Cortes
    @mc23

    Indeed.

    My wife laughed when I told her about being puzzled by hearing a black Labrador (traditionally named the same way as Wing Cdr Gibson’s) being called “Benson” - I’d never heard of the TV series “Soap.” That must’ve been around 1990.

  94. @Anon
    OT:

    "King Charles doesn't have to pay inheritance tax on the Queen's private estate worth more than $750 million"

    For everyone saying the monarchy actually saves Britain money.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    ““King Charles doesn’t have to pay inheritance tax on the Queen’s private estate worth more than \$750 million””

    Neither does any oligarch buying a vast estate in the Highlands. No inheritance tax on agricultural land/buildings, ranging from East Anglian wheat prairies to grouse moors or sheep mountains. Like the Balmoral Estate or the Duchy of Cornwall’s holdings.

    Some things – like Buck House or the art therein – don’t ‘belong’ to the monarch, Charles can’t just sell it to a hotel chain, it’s to be passed on. It comes with the job.

    Try again.

  95. The Germans at the Meuse was also interesting. Dinant, Sedan…Rommel did one of the river crossings.

    The French troops defending the river crossings got hammered by Stukas and were cowed into inactive passive looking on.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Wokechoke

    'The Germans at the Meuse was also interesting. Dinant, Sedan…Rommel did one of the river crossings.

    The French troops defending the river crossings got hammered by Stukas and were cowed into inactive passive looking on.'


    The ones to the south got hammered by Stukas. The ones to the north got bamboozled by Rommel.

    It was the Rommel school of warfare at its finest. Reduce everything to a state of complete confusion. Then, while your opponent is paralyzed by his consciousness that he no longer has any idea at all what's going on, you go right ahead.

    You don't know either -- but that's okay. You're used to it. It's what you do in all your battles.

  96. @Thoughts
    @Almost Missouri

    My gut instinct says that Drones are stupid

    They were stupid in the 1980s when we called them 'remote controlled airplanes' And they are stupid now

    I do admit they are Much Scarier Looking in 2022

    But deep deep deep down inside....my gut says...With the exception of Assassinations in 3rd world countries...The Obsession with Drones will Be the Downfall of the Globalist Military

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    Don’t be silly. What do you think Autopilot is? Computer assisted flying etc? It’s very likely that self flying aircraft will be the thing quite soon.

    After 9/11 remote controlled aircraft were armed with missiles for a very good reason.

  97. @Pixo
    @Greta Handel

    Mindless reflexive right-wing anti-establishmentarianism is dull and predictable.

    Now if you disagree, you have a lot of places other than iSteve to find this thanks to (1) Russian and Chinese funding of English-language anti-American propaganda; (2) profitable peddling of very overpriced supplements and gold coins.

    Just because antivax and Putinist talking points are censored in some places does not change the fact they are tiresomely omnipresent in most right wing online spaces.

    Lest I seem too critical, let me say I welcomed the Russian-funded English language propaganda and hacking back in 2015-16 when it was (1) pro-Bernie and anti-Hillary (2) pro-Trump and anti-Hillary. I also see the supplement grifting right as good people 95% on my side, and persuadable on the other 5%.

    Ultimately, the same scientific outlook that leads me to reject the establishment’s racial egalitarianism leads me to agree that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. And the same morality that leads me to oppose the brown and black invasion of America leads me to support Ukraine’s defense of its borders.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    None of which addresses my #7.

    What do you make of

    • a long-standing dissident public intellectual on HBD

    • who also dabbles in pop culture and sportsball

    • obsessively amplifying Establishment narratives on two subjects in which he’s apparently never shown much interest?

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @Greta Handel

    "obsessively amplifying Establishment narratives on two subjects in which he’s apparently never shown much interest?"

    What's the mystery, he agrees with the conventional wisdom about many things.

    As for 'obsessively' covid and Ukraine are both topical. Naturally he had little reason to post about them 5 years ago.

    He might post more about covid for which there is lots of data to analyse which is sort of his thing except that so many of his commenters are lunatics on the subject.

    Replies: @Not Dale Clevenger

  98. @theMann
    @Daniel H

    Tuntematon Sotilas (The Unknown Soldier) is probably the best WWII film. Makes you appreciate just how tough the Finns were.

    I always was partial to Hell is for Heroes; Battle Cry is very good to.

    Kelly's Heroes got butchered in editing, but most people have no idea how much of that sort of thing went on -WWII was a loot driven conflict.


    Russia did a twelve part series of "Life and Fate" that I saw a few years ago. I recollect it being pretty excellent but it is currently unavailable in the USA. (!?) The Russians have made a lot of WWII films lately that try to come to terms with the historical past, which is after all a lot more historical for them than most of us, and some of them are pretty good. They generally have shed the ridiculous Soviet Propagandism of earlier Russian films.

    The most stunning WWII film is Grave of the Fireflies.

    Replies: @Wokechoke

    They have several films about the meatgrinder battles. one that I enjoyed was about trains during the Leningrad siege. Charming actresses and it dealt with them smuggling a cyclotron out of a lab in Leningrad under aircraft and armored train attack.

    I noticed that in many of the ww2 films they are about desperate defenses and there are lucky charm Mongolians, Siberian’s and Ukbeks in each film. Like they are lucky Buddhas.

    These people don’t need Superhero genres nor fantasy literature about slants and dark hordes or nazguls. They appeared to live it on an industrial scale.

  99. One of the earliest winners in the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest for bad opening lines to novels was “Just beyond the narrows, the river widens.”

    If that’s been topped in the following 40 years of the contest, please let us know.

  100. @The Alarmist
    The Ukies are wasting troops and materiel building a salient into which the remainder of their troops and materiel will be encircled and slaughtered. Slawa Ukraini.

    Read up on the WW2 battle of Kursk.

    Replies: @Muggles, @Eric Novak

    The Ukies are wasting troops and materiel building a salient into which the remainder of their troops and materiel will be encircled and slaughtered. Slawa Ukraini.

    Another iSteve keyboard General prediction.

    Please promise to come back here in a month to tell us how that worked out.

    I agree that these things could occur, but Ukes aren’t clueless and Uncle Sam and friends can pretty well tell them when and how the Russians are counter attacking.

    You should assume, as I do, that the military planners on the scene have better maps and understanding of the details than you do. Of course even then they can get it wrong.

    Hitler had little to no air recon on the eastern front in a detailed and timely manner. He ruined the German offensive in Russia by trying to run the war a thousand miles away from maps in a bunker.

    From far away like we are, the logistics details are murky at best. These usually dictate how such things go. Ukes can pull out to avoid encirclement as well. Russians rely mainly on slow and heavy artillery and tanks, needing rail, good roads/bridges and fuel. Bad weather may eventually become a factor as Putin’s blitzkrieg grinds to a halt.

    Since both sides are running short on men and material, I predict some sort of ceasefire and negotiated stand-down before any “decisive victories” on either side. In that case, Putin loses.

    • Replies: @JimB
    @Muggles


    Since both sides are running short on men and material, I predict some sort of ceasefire and negotiated stand-down before any “decisive victories” on either side. In that case, Putin loses.
     
    Or the Russians can use an upper atmosphere nuclear detonation to wipe out all the US high tech gear and the Ukrainian internet. Then the US will lose contact with their proxies, and the Russians can resume making Ukranian sausages with their artillery.
  101. @Polistra
    @Polistra

    My bad. Turns out she was right. Just look what goes on back in Coach.

    https://i.ibb.co/FhwrvWm/20220911-072527.jpg

    Replies: @Muggles, @Lurker

    Another MAGA terrorist? I don’t see the red hat…

  102. @Colin Wright
    @Feryl

    'Cross of Iron is watchable, but is pretty dang low budget for a WW2 movie. A Bridge Too Far might be my favorite movie about WW2 (and it’s a beautifully photographed movie, Full Metal Jacket and especially Saving Private Ryan really sparked the trend of washed out/desaturated war movie photography which I don’t care for).'

    I agree with you about Cross of Iron -- and the low budget doesn't bother me. A Bridge Too Far always struck me as a bit sterile and contrived; it never really takes off. Saving Private Ryan irritates me on a number of scores: most egregiously, in its blatant attempts to justify shooting prisoners. It's not just an inaccurate war film -- that's pretty usual -- but an immoral one.

    It's ironic that you imply Full Metal Jacket is a WW2 movie. It isn't set in the Second World War -- but might as well be. For all the plaudits, there's very little that ties the film specifically to Viet Nam.

    Beyond that? The elderly German The Bridge, the Russian Ballad of a Soldier, the entertaining Kelly's Heroes all have their virtues. The obscure Japanese hagiography of the Kamikazes, For Those Whom We Love, is pretty good. The Norwegian The King's Choice is worth watching -- if not quite a war film. Soldier of Orange is good -- this is what it really means to choose resistance. It's not all Red Dawn and ambushing the evil invader.

    I like Memphis Belle -- I always thought that was overlooked. Tora Tora Tora is great. So's Downfall. The Boat is good overall, but the anti-Nazism and anti-authoritarianism of the officers seems both contrived and implausible. Is Paris Burning is wildly uneven -- but the good scenes will make up for the bits that make you grit your teeth. I'm a sucker for great scores, so the music is probably what carries me through that one.

    The miniseries Band of Brothers and The Pacific are excellent -- as is the also overlooked British Piece of Cake, which chronicles the fortunes of a British fighter squadron from the outbreak of war to the climactic fighting of September 7th, 1940. That one starts fairly slowly but steadily picks up speed. Stick with it through the first two or three episodes and you'll be glad you did.

    Looking over my list, I'd recommend watching Memphis Belle, Downfall, Tora Tora Tora and Piece of Cake in particular if you haven't already. I assume you've already seen Band of Brothers and The Pacific.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Feryl

    I know FMJ is a Vietnam movie, I was talking about war movies in general and how visually ugly FMJ and SPR are for the genre as a whole (and for all the credit SPR gets for it’s pioneering aesthetic, it really was FMJ that was first).

    I believe FMJ was shot almost entirely in Britain, thus explaining the pallor of the white actors and the lack of sunshine. The Green Berets was mocked for shooting a Nam movie in the deep south, but the deep south is far closer to the climate and geography of Vietnam than Britain is.

  103. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Colin Wright

    "The Boat is good overall, but the anti-Nazism and anti-authoritarianism of the officers seems both contrived and implausible."

    When you're the skipper of a steel tube worried about depth charges, crushing pressure, and the mental health of your confined crew, a little give and take is good for morale.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘When you’re the skipper of a steel tube worried about depth charges, crushing pressure, and the mental health of your confined crew, a little give and take is good for morale.’

    I just doubt the atmosphere on the (all-volunteer) U-boats — particularly in 1941 — was like that.

    For better or worse, I’m convinced Germany was dominated by true believers at that moment in time. A good introduction to the zeitgeist is Seig Heil! The Letters of Tank Gunner Karl Fuchs, 1937-1941. Young Karl was killed outside Moscow in December 1941. No retrospective editing.

    There were several reasons the Germans fought so well. One was that they believed. At no point was this truer than in 1941. In that respect, I say The Boat is peddling comforting crap.

    …good film otherwise, of course. It’d be interesting, though, to reread the book the film is based on — Lothar Gunther-Buchheim’s The Boat, if I recall aright. It’s either a memoir or a fictionalized memoir. I wonder if he portrays the Germans quite as the film does. Were they as skeptical of final victory, as hostile to Nazism as the film would have them?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Colin Wright

    "I just doubt the atmosphere on the (all-volunteer) U-boats -- particularly in 1941 -- was like that."

    Yeah, you're right. The Kriegsmarine, particularly the U-boat crews, expressed a devotion to National Socialism and mangod Hitler that was second only to Himmler's organization. The conditions on the boats required that kind of fanaticism to keep the fear at bay. Admiral Karl Donitz, supreme commander of the Kriegsmarine's U-boat division, was devoted to Hitler. As Steve's hated Russians approached Berlin, Donitz assumed the presidency and control of the German armed forces whilst Adolf and Eva were flown out of Germany to rendezvous with a specially equipped U-boat in Spain (courtesy of Donitz) bound for southern Argentina.

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Colin Wright

    Yes, the Captain in the book is even more cynical than in the movie. Talks admiringly about Churchhill. Interestingly he is engaged to a “Nazibraut”, who is apparently a fanatical believer. I think the movie is probably fairly accurate as far as attitudes were concerned. The German officer corps generally detested Nazi party members, whom they saw as mediocre careerists. Enlisted men resented being subjected to propaganda when they cared about booze, women and food. Hitler was a also a complete landlubber and never all that popular with the Navy, possibly because he himself was not a big fan of the Navy. He envisioned Germany as a land and air power. There was always a lot of sneaky admiration for the British navy among German naval officers, which is not surprising if you think about it.

  104. @Pixo
    @Mr. Anon

    Strong disagree on war movies getting worse.

    Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    The Alamo
    Patton
    The Battle of Algiers
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Zulu

    And they are all after 1960.

    I understand tastes differ, but black and white movies with stilted theatrical dialog and weak SFX aren’t for me.

    I’d also say every decade they keep getting better, and 2010-2020 had more good English language war movies than 1900-2000.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Colin Wright

    ‘Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    ‘The Alamo
    Patton
    The Battle of Algiers
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Zulu’

    Yeah — but conversely, Dunkirk really pales in retrospect, and the wildly praised 1917
    was really bad. My daughter’s hardly a war buff, but even she noticed the improbabilities. It’s still unclear to me why that film was ballyhooed.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Colin Wright

    I thought both Dunkirk and 1917 were incredible, some of the best movies I’ve ever seen.

    A couple improbable scenes wouldn’t bother me, though too many kills the movie. I stopped watching Vikings because the battle scenes were too absurd. The similar Last Kingdom wasn’t terribly realistic either, but much better on that front.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  105. To all of you born on 9/11/01, as the ⩎⩎ and ⬠ were attacked,

    [MORE]

    Cheers!

  106. @AnotherDad

    An important question over the next few days is whether the retreating Russians can stabilize a frontline along one of the major rivers of northeastern Ukraine, most notably the Donets (or Seversky Donets) River and the Oskil River and Reservoir.
     
    It's interesting, I guess. (I'm definitely not following all this blow-by-blow stuff. I root for Ukrainians because I'm a nationalist and anti-imperialist. But not my country and the result not important to my family or the American nation's survival.)

    But I don't know whether it is even important?

    My take is while tanks are rolling across the plains this is very different from the big War. While Putin clearly has some 1914ish imperialist territorial aims, this is a war--like America in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or the Russians in Afghanistan--where you have a nuclear armed power, operating in another much weaker country attempting to impose its will.

    It seems to me that goal of the weaker nation--or just tribal/political groups--is really just to get the invading super-power to pack its ass up and go home.

    Ukraine has zero chance of actually "defeating" Russia. (All the Putinist nonsense about Ukraine being some sort of "threat" to Russia is just that--nonsense.) What it has to do is convince Putin--or go around Putin and convince the Russian establishment--that they should just make some sort of reasonable deal that leave the Ukrainians free to develop as they wish, including having whatever political/economic links to the EU that they want.

    Maybe pushing the Russians back across this or that river does something to convince the Russian deep state that Putin's folly is ... folly. But mostly I think the Ukrainians just need to keep fighting, keep inflicting losses on the Russians.

    This is very said. These Ukrainian and Russian boys should be home working, marrying their girlfriends and making new Ukrainians and Russians. That's what these countries need.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    It seems to me that goal of the weaker nation–or just tribal/political groups–is really just to get the invading super-power to pack its ass up and go home.

    Ukraine has zero chance of actually “defeating” Russia.

    Sure, the same thing with Vietnam and the US.

  107. @Mr. Anon
    The Bridge at Remagen wasn't a bad movie. WWII movies of the 50's* through the early 80's were better than they are now.

    *I'm including Battleground from 1949. If you haven't seen it, see it. It's really good.

    *Except for The Battle of the Bulge - that movie sucked.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Prester John

    Robert Shaw was pretty damned good in The Battle of the Bulge though–and kudos to him for employing just enough of a faux German accent for credibility and eschewing the fake, overdone accents that make non-Germans sound silly.

  108. @Cagey Beast
    @AnotherDad

    It's more complicated than that. Russia extends beyond the borders of the Russian Federation and the boundaries between Ukraine and Russia have always been hazy:

    https://twitter.com/VeraVanHorne/status/1566098857624223745

    and:
    https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1565770890016657411

    Now you're free to say you don't care about such complications and that's fine. People in charge of our foreign policy are paid to care about such things. They used to but now they're proud not to care anymore. There's a lot of that around now days.

    Replies: @Prester John

    Hazy indeed. In fact, the boundaries of much of Europe have that same characteristic. Just ask the Serbs.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Prester John

    The former Yugoslavia is another place that's complicated but Washington and Brussels considered it obscene to say so. They just need to form a consensus around who's the Hitler and then make sure they're not the Neville Chamberlain. Armed with the moral clarity that comes from going with the crowd, the righteous bombing of bridges, cement factories, power plants, Chinese embassies and TV stations could begin.

  109. @IHTG
    @Daniel H

    It is a good movie! You gotta love how Peckinpah found a way to get far rightists to approve of an anti-war Marxist film, though.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-8UEogeF8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1oeyH_RmmY

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Anonymous

    The haircuts.

  110. @Prester John
    @Cagey Beast

    Hazy indeed. In fact, the boundaries of much of Europe have that same characteristic. Just ask the Serbs.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    The former Yugoslavia is another place that’s complicated but Washington and Brussels considered it obscene to say so. They just need to form a consensus around who’s the Hitler and then make sure they’re not the Neville Chamberlain. Armed with the moral clarity that comes from going with the crowd, the righteous bombing of bridges, cement factories, power plants, Chinese embassies and TV stations could begin.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  111. @Mr. Anon
    @Pixo


    Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    I understand tastes differ, but black and white movies with stilted theatrical dialog and weak SFX aren’t for me.
     
    You should expand your viewing:

    Battleground

    12 O'Clock High

    The Desert Fox

    The Dam Busters

    The Blue Max

    Tora, Tora, Tora!

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Pixo

    Oh, and A Bridge Too Far as well.

  112. @Sean
    I love the scene where the young officer goes ahead in his jeep and the unseen driver is thinking 'Oh Shit! Versatile George Segal could do everything pretty good. Like Ted Nugent (there are better guitarists, but they can't sing).

    This was nicely done by Ukraine especially as the Russian counter attack when it finally arrives will be moving heavy artillery and even heavier truckborne ammunition across a sea of mud .I don't know what is the matter with the Russians; are they missing their Jewish brainpower who have emigrated?

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    “…I don’t know what is the matter with the Russians; ..”

    Looks like a couple of things. They have underestimated the Ukrainians. And I suspect there is quite a bit of telling superiors what they want to hear and not rocking the boat. Which can lead to avoidable fiascos.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @James B. Shearer

    And 70 years of Communism typically don't do a people's ethics a lot of good. It's kind of like the "-ian" vs. "-yan" Armenians.

    So a lot of the money that was supposed to pay for Russian air superiority instead wound up paying for infinity pools in Cyprus and Bel-Air.

    Replies: @Sean

  113. @Greta Handel
    @Pixo

    None of which addresses my #7.

    What do you make of

    • a long-standing dissident public intellectual on HBD

    • who also dabbles in pop culture and sportsball

    • obsessively amplifying Establishment narratives on two subjects in which he’s apparently never shown much interest?

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    “obsessively amplifying Establishment narratives on two subjects in which he’s apparently never shown much interest?”

    What’s the mystery, he agrees with the conventional wisdom about many things.

    As for ‘obsessively’ covid and Ukraine are both topical. Naturally he had little reason to post about them 5 years ago.

    He might post more about covid for which there is lots of data to analyse which is sort of his thing except that so many of his commenters are lunatics on the subject.

    • Agree: Pixo
    • Replies: @Not Dale Clevenger
    @James B. Shearer

    There were plenty of people posting on the situation in Eastern Europe five years ago. It's been a major factor in international politics since 2014, and has shaped domestic politics since at least 2016-17.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

  114. @Colin Wright
    @SunBakedSuburb

    'When you’re the skipper of a steel tube worried about depth charges, crushing pressure, and the mental health of your confined crew, a little give and take is good for morale.'

    I just doubt the atmosphere on the (all-volunteer) U-boats -- particularly in 1941 -- was like that.

    For better or worse, I'm convinced Germany was dominated by true believers at that moment in time. A good introduction to the zeitgeist is Seig Heil! The Letters of Tank Gunner Karl Fuchs, 1937-1941. Young Karl was killed outside Moscow in December 1941. No retrospective editing.

    There were several reasons the Germans fought so well. One was that they believed. At no point was this truer than in 1941. In that respect, I say The Boat is peddling comforting crap.

    ...good film otherwise, of course. It'd be interesting, though, to reread the book the film is based on -- Lothar Gunther-Buchheim's The Boat, if I recall aright. It's either a memoir or a fictionalized memoir. I wonder if he portrays the Germans quite as the film does. Were they as skeptical of final victory, as hostile to Nazism as the film would have them?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Peter Akuleyev

    “I just doubt the atmosphere on the (all-volunteer) U-boats — particularly in 1941 — was like that.”

    Yeah, you’re right. The Kriegsmarine, particularly the U-boat crews, expressed a devotion to National Socialism and mangod Hitler that was second only to Himmler’s organization. The conditions on the boats required that kind of fanaticism to keep the fear at bay. Admiral Karl Donitz, supreme commander of the Kriegsmarine’s U-boat division, was devoted to Hitler. As Steve’s hated Russians approached Berlin, Donitz assumed the presidency and control of the German armed forces whilst Adolf and Eva were flown out of Germany to rendezvous with a specially equipped U-boat in Spain (courtesy of Donitz) bound for southern Argentina.

  115. @James B. Shearer
    @Sean

    "...I don’t know what is the matter with the Russians; .."

    Looks like a couple of things. They have underestimated the Ukrainians. And I suspect there is quite a bit of telling superiors what they want to hear and not rocking the boat. Which can lead to avoidable fiascos.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    And 70 years of Communism typically don’t do a people’s ethics a lot of good. It’s kind of like the “-ian” vs. “-yan” Armenians.

    So a lot of the money that was supposed to pay for Russian air superiority instead wound up paying for infinity pools in Cyprus and Bel-Air.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Steve Sailer

    You worked out that the Kherson fanfaronade was likely a red herring.

  116. The 1969 movie The Bridge at Remagen, with George Segal and Ben Gazzara as the American soldiers who led the charge against across the bridge, is supposed to be decent (a respectable 6.7 rating on Wikipedia).

    I’ve been to the remains of the Ludendorff Bridge. Still scarred with small arms and HMG round impacts. When stationed in Germany in the 2000’s (before 9/11), we did a staff ride (a review of the battle on the terrain it was fought) there. Interesting to put ourselves in the route of the task force commander and the Soldiers as they conducted operations on 7 March 1945. You can’t see the bridge location on the Rhine from the route they followed until you are almost on top of it (about 2 miles out of Remagen). From that point we followed the route of march/attack as the three tank companies and supporting infantry company converged in a hasty “movement to contact” to attempt to seize the west side of the bridge (with amazing luck and skill). I liked the movie.

    As for the Russia-Ukraine situation, I find that in my Autumn years, I am sour on America continuing to meddle in the affairs of others abroad. Smedley Butler was right – war is a racket. I sympathize with the Joe and Jane regular folk of both Ukraine and Russia, who don’t like what’s happening but have to tragically endure it; something tells me they’ll get through it, though too many will have died. We are edging into a perilous danger zone where we could back a nuclear power into a position where they may perceive their very survival is at stake (an existential issue) and they could choose the Samson option. Its not just for Israel, you know.

    As for best WW II movies:
    Battleground
    12 O’Clock High
    The Victors
    Attack (one of Jack Palance’s best performances)

  117. @Anonymous
    American soldiers didn’t win WW II. As far as America’s role, it was won by our productive capacity and the fact that neither Japan nor Germany could attack the continental US.

    Of course, there was also FDR’s lend lease program to the communists.

    Nobody thought American soldiers were the best. It’s funny all these movies focus on the heroics of soldiers when that had very little to do with winning the war. We still get it with Saving Private Ryan and all that crap.

    Replies: @Captain Tripps

    American soldiers didn’t win WW II.

    Sure they did. They contributed as much of a share as any of the victors. Your point about production is absolutely valid; everybody acknowledges our ability to turn into the main industrial powerhouse of the war, protected by two giant moats that our principal opponents (Japan and Germany) had little capacity to project combat power across into out main homeland.

    Overlord was the largest amphibious assault in human history, but more importantly, the planning, preparation, and positioning of logistics, enabled us to make it STICK.

    Having said all that, the Eastern Front was the largest land conflict in human history. I’m quite aware that GI Ivan and his allies carried the heaviest burden of defeating the Wermacht by far. We, the Brits, Canadians, French, were the supporting effort, and our air power was a critical factor as well. But the Russians did most of the bleeding.

  118. @Wokechoke
    The Germans at the Meuse was also interesting. Dinant, Sedan...Rommel did one of the river crossings.

    The French troops defending the river crossings got hammered by Stukas and were cowed into inactive passive looking on.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘The Germans at the Meuse was also interesting. Dinant, Sedan…Rommel did one of the river crossings.

    The French troops defending the river crossings got hammered by Stukas and were cowed into inactive passive looking on.’

    The ones to the south got hammered by Stukas. The ones to the north got bamboozled by Rommel.

    It was the Rommel school of warfare at its finest. Reduce everything to a state of complete confusion. Then, while your opponent is paralyzed by his consciousness that he no longer has any idea at all what’s going on, you go right ahead.

    You don’t know either — but that’s okay. You’re used to it. It’s what you do in all your battles.

  119. @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Taking enemy territory without destroying enemy in the field has the danger of overextending oneself.

    1. The most impressive Wehrmacht victory in WWII was Westfeldzug (1940) against arguably the best army in the world, was decided before barely any French territory was taken. But rather by trapping and destroying the main French and BEF forces in Benelux.

    2. After Battle of Smolensk (Sep 1941) which Soviets held on for longer than expected, Hitler decided delay the spearhead of Army Group Centre towards Moscow, and to solidify the drive of Army Group South towards Ukraine to secure resources. This was in retrospect considered by many a decisive missed opportunity to catch the Soviet army on its backfoot.

    3. The 1942 German summer offensive Case Blue had the objective of capturing the Volga, but this became to also include the oil fields of Caucasus. The Germans became way too extended and when Soviets counterattacked, the 6th Army retreated forward into Stalingrad rather than backwards.

    4. The main disagreement between Hitler and Manstein was the former insisted on holding every inch of territory where the latter held a more flexible view:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Defense

    Manstein advocated for the 6th Army to breakout of the Stalingrad pocket. Hitler insisted that they hold firm. The end result was the destruction of the 6th Army.

    5. It was the later Soviet summer 1944 counteroffensive, Operatsiya Bagration, that succeed in destroying the enemy, Army Group Centre, in the field, was decisive.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Captain Tripps

    Stalingrad – the Axis ultimately committed 1 Million + forces to the battle, over 400,000 of them Germans. Hard to find reliable sources on accurate figures, but the Germans suffered ~283K casualties, 91K+ as POWs. The Russians were harsh in their treatment; the POWs were forced to conduct foot marches multiple times to various POW camps through the war. The Soviets only returned the 5,000 left alive to Germany in 1955.

    • Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @Captain Tripps

    From Stalingrad: Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever? (1959)


    In civilian life I'm a scientist. A botanist. A man who studies flowers, plants and their growth. It was fate's bitter irony that took me to the Volga.

    Im zivilen Beruf bin ich Naturwissenschaftler. Botaniker. Ein Mann, der Blumen, Pflanzen und ihr Wachstum studiert. Ein bittere scherz des Schicksals, die mich an die Wolga verschlagen mit.
     

    When Paulus is informed that he has been promoted by Hitler to Generalfeldmarschall,

    Thank you for being tactful, and not congratulating me.

    Ich danke ihnen für ihren takt, zu dieser Beförderung nicht zu gratulieren.
     

    https://youtu.be/4jrn8KsiVko?t=2906
  120. @Renard
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever.
     
    Putin's goal is to prevent Ukraine from becoming an outpost of the Evil Empire and threatening Moscow with short-range missiles etc. Legitimate goal btw.

    Replies: @Dave from Oz

    Putin’s goal is to secure a land route between Russia and Svestapol.

  121. @Thea
    @PhysicistDave

    It is always about territory.


    Western Europe became a vassal state of the USA.

    You can conquer and allow the locals to think they still have a say. Could Canada or Western Europeans have signed a treaty with the USSR that Americans disagreed with?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Thea wrote to me:

    It is always about territory.

    But grabbing territory is not how you win the war: my point was that you win by creating a situation in which the other side’s army is either unable or unwilling to fight.

    After that, you may (or may not) choose to grab territory.

    Thea also wrote:

    You can conquer and allow the locals to think they still have a say. Could Canada or Western Europeans have signed a treaty with the USSR that Americans disagreed with?

    Of course, the little not-to-be-mentioned secret that you are pointing to is that the other NATO countries are occupied territory, occupied by the US military.

    The fact that their local lapdog elites are happy about that is the norm for empires: the US intervened as needed in their political affairs to make sure the local elites were subservient to the US Deep State.

  122. @Anonymous
    @PhysicistDave

    And once the war is won, the victor does what? Takes the loser's territory. The Russians in WWII and the North Vietnamese in Vietnam. The U.S. of course took and ruled Japan after WWII. North Korea in the Korean War at one point seized Seoul.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Anonymous[213] wrote to me:

    And once the war is won, the victor does what? Takes the loser’s territory.

    Sometimes. Sometimes not.

    What did the US seize after Gulf War I?

    But you win the war by creating a situation in which the other side’s army either cannot or will not continue to fight.

    After you’ve won, various options are of course open. How that works out varies from war to war.

  123. @Mr. Anon
    @Pixo


    Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    I understand tastes differ, but black and white movies with stilted theatrical dialog and weak SFX aren’t for me.
     
    You should expand your viewing:

    Battleground

    12 O'Clock High

    The Desert Fox

    The Dam Busters

    The Blue Max

    Tora, Tora, Tora!

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Pixo

    Assuming The Desert Fox is about Rommel I will give that a shot.

  124. @Colin Wright
    @Pixo

    'Good war movies from before 1975 I can count on one hand:

    'The Alamo
    Patton
    The Battle of Algiers
    Lawrence of Arabia
    Zulu'

    Yeah -- but conversely, Dunkirk really pales in retrospect, and the wildly praised 1917
    was really bad. My daughter's hardly a war buff, but even she noticed the improbabilities. It's still unclear to me why that film was ballyhooed.

    Replies: @Pixo

    I thought both Dunkirk and 1917 were incredible, some of the best movies I’ve ever seen.

    A couple improbable scenes wouldn’t bother me, though too many kills the movie. I stopped watching Vikings because the battle scenes were too absurd. The similar Last Kingdom wasn’t terribly realistic either, but much better on that front.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Pixo

    '...A couple improbable scenes wouldn’t bother me...'

    Dunkirk could be chalked up to different tastes -- but 1917? Mountain streams in Flanders and motorized infantry swanning about behind the German lines in 1917 still come to mind. Oh yeah -- there was the intact phone line running across the front.

    That's just the technical improbabilities. I also recall the behavior of the officers as being way off for 1917 England. It wasn't a film about the First World War. It was a film about the film-makers ignorance of the First World War.

    Replies: @Pixo

  125. @Peter Akuleyev
    @PhysicistDave

    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a tactical goal, not a strategic goal.

    Taking territory is generally the best way to stop the opponent from continuing the fight. Deprive them of resources, and room to maneuver and they will not be able to fight. The German army has historically been very good at this.

    Replies: @Renard, @YetAnotherAnon, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Morris39, @PhysicistDave

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to me:

    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself

    Well, sometimes the ultimate goal is taking territory, sometimes not. What territory did the US seize after Gulf War I or II? We certainly did not make Iraq the 51st state!

    The ultimate goal of wars varies — sometimes seizing territory, sometimes not.

    But seizing territory per se is never the key to winning a war. The key to winning is to create a situation in which the other side’s army is either unable or unwilling to continue fighting.

    Sometimes that involves seizing territory. Often not.

    How many square miles of German territory did the Allies hold on November 11, 1918? How much Allied territory did the Germans hold?

    And who won?

    • Replies: @dimples
    @PhysicistDave

    The only goals for American wars are:

    1. Make money for the military industrial complex.
    2. Fun with guns and missiles for the participants.
    3. Exciting and pseudo-important jobs for the Deep State bureaucracy.

    Any other supposed goals are just the cover story for the dopes.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  126. @Peter Akuleyev
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    You are correct, you can conquer territory for tactical reasons or for strategic reasons. Hitler is a good example of a leader who often seemed to confuse tactical and strategic aims.

    Conquering and holding territory is not the only goal in war but for Putin in 2022, it very much is. He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine. As soon as Russian troops leave a piece of Ukrainian territory it immediately reverts to being “Nazi and militarized”. Some commenters here seem to be in denial about that fact. Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @PhysicistDave, @J.Ross

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms:

    Conquering and holding territory is not the only goal in war but for Putin in 2022, it very much is.

    And you know that how?

    Moscow said their goal was to keep Ukraine out of the US-occupied Empire (AKA NATO) and to enforce the Minsk accords re the Donbass.

    Credible and reasonable goals.

    If Putin really wants to annex Galicia, he is a very stupid man: it would be a disaster.

    And he is not a stupid man.

    Do you have evidence to the contrary?

  127. @James B. Shearer
    @PhysicistDave

    "Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight."

    Well in this battle the rapid Ukrainian gain of territory seems to have been a consequence of the opposite side not being willing and/or able to put up much resistance. So you appear to be making a distinction without much difference.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:

    Well in this battle the rapid Ukrainian gain of territory seems to have been a consequence of the opposite side not being willing and/or able to put up much resistance. So you appear to be making a distinction without much difference.

    Could be.

    Or could be a clever trap set up by the Russian MoD.

    Or, I strongly suspect, it could just be part of the ebb and flow of war that will not prove to be decisive one way or the other.

    One key point to keep in mind: modern infrastructure — especially electric power plants and water and sewage treatment plants, but also bridges — are very much “soft targets” given modern weaponry.

    Putin has not — yet — made a systematic effort to take that out across Ukraine.

    But he can.

    He can turn Kiev, Lvov, Odessa, etc. into bigger shitholes even than Jackson, Mississippi.

    The Kremlin still has a lot of cards to play that they have not yet laid on the table.

    Which is why so many of us are morally certain Kiev cannot win this militarily. The most they can hope for is that the Russians just get sick of the whole thing. Which could lead to a negotiated peace.

    Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began.

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @PhysicistDave

    "Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began."

    Putin wasn't interested. He thought he could put in a puppet government without much trouble. Not actually a crazy notion but it turned out to be incorrect and now he has problems.

    And half the time you claim Kiev is just an American puppet in which case they had no power to negotiate anything. So do you think Kiev is an independent actor or not?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Sean
    @PhysicistDave


    Or, I strongly suspect, it could just be part of the ebb and flow of war that will not prove to be decisive one way or the other.
     
    A Russian reaction that Ukraine will find unpleasant is going to result from this offensive. Dismissals of generals by Zelensky in the past month may have been because they did not want to mount this offensive out of concern such a move might precipitate Russia into drawing on its full strength, which they had not done. The Russian generals will indeed excuse their denuding part of the front line of reliable quality units to reinforce Kherson as robbing peter to pay paul because they lacked a quality reserve for contingences (a military prerequisite).

    The Ruski top brass professional soldiers are going to say this reverse is just a predictable consequence of economising on manpower, and to prevent a recurrence they must be given more troops. In the Vietnam war General Harold K Johnson (the army’s premier tactician) regretted not demanding either a full national mobilsation to fight to win, or withdrawal. We don’t know what Russia can do with a larger balanced force; most military expert commentators said from the very begining Russia had gone in to this invasion with far fewer troops than were needed, and their battalion tactical groups formations were top heavy with artillery and lacked infantry. Russia's has weathered the initial sanctions storm and can afford to pay for a full national mobilisation now. I think that is going to happen, and the US will give Ukraine even better weapons in response. The result will be a lot of deaths, and a slow writing down of Ukrainian units still motivated enough to use in offensives. Troops are the one thing the West can't give Ukraine, so a brutish Verdun type campaign is the best hope for Russia.

  128. @Steve Sailer
    @James B. Shearer

    And 70 years of Communism typically don't do a people's ethics a lot of good. It's kind of like the "-ian" vs. "-yan" Armenians.

    So a lot of the money that was supposed to pay for Russian air superiority instead wound up paying for infinity pools in Cyprus and Bel-Air.

    Replies: @Sean

    You worked out that the Kherson fanfaronade was likely a red herring.

  129. @PhysicistDave
    @James B. Shearer

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:


    Well in this battle the rapid Ukrainian gain of territory seems to have been a consequence of the opposite side not being willing and/or able to put up much resistance. So you appear to be making a distinction without much difference.
     
    Could be.

    Or could be a clever trap set up by the Russian MoD.

    Or, I strongly suspect, it could just be part of the ebb and flow of war that will not prove to be decisive one way or the other.

    One key point to keep in mind: modern infrastructure -- especially electric power plants and water and sewage treatment plants, but also bridges -- are very much "soft targets" given modern weaponry.

    Putin has not -- yet -- made a systematic effort to take that out across Ukraine.

    But he can.

    He can turn Kiev, Lvov, Odessa, etc. into bigger shitholes even than Jackson, Mississippi.

    The Kremlin still has a lot of cards to play that they have not yet laid on the table.

    Which is why so many of us are morally certain Kiev cannot win this militarily. The most they can hope for is that the Russians just get sick of the whole thing. Which could lead to a negotiated peace.

    Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer, @Sean

    “Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began.”

    Putin wasn’t interested. He thought he could put in a puppet government without much trouble. Not actually a crazy notion but it turned out to be incorrect and now he has problems.

    And half the time you claim Kiev is just an American puppet in which case they had no power to negotiate anything. So do you think Kiev is an independent actor or not?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @James B. Shearer

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:


    [Dave]“Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began.”

    [Jimbo]Putin wasn’t interested.
     
    Actually, Moscow kept warning Kiev and the West to back off.

    But they wouldn't listen: just a few days before Putin attacked, the slut Kamala Harris went out of her way to encourage Ukraine to join NATO -- that may well have been the trigger.

    Jimbo also wrote:

    And half the time you claim Kiev is just an American puppet in which case they had no power to negotiate anything. So do you think Kiev is an independent actor or not?
     
    Well, Zelensky would have had to have broken with his masters in the US Deep State to work out a modus vivendi with Putin.

    But, alas, Zelensky lacked the guts to do it. Maybe he thought the US imperials would protect him.

    Hint: the US proconsuls do not keep faith with their local henchmen any more than their British predecessors did.

    Perfidious Yankees, just like perfidious Albion.

    Put not your trust in empires.

    And so his people die.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

  130. @PhysicistDave
    @James B. Shearer

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:


    Well in this battle the rapid Ukrainian gain of territory seems to have been a consequence of the opposite side not being willing and/or able to put up much resistance. So you appear to be making a distinction without much difference.
     
    Could be.

    Or could be a clever trap set up by the Russian MoD.

    Or, I strongly suspect, it could just be part of the ebb and flow of war that will not prove to be decisive one way or the other.

    One key point to keep in mind: modern infrastructure -- especially electric power plants and water and sewage treatment plants, but also bridges -- are very much "soft targets" given modern weaponry.

    Putin has not -- yet -- made a systematic effort to take that out across Ukraine.

    But he can.

    He can turn Kiev, Lvov, Odessa, etc. into bigger shitholes even than Jackson, Mississippi.

    The Kremlin still has a lot of cards to play that they have not yet laid on the table.

    Which is why so many of us are morally certain Kiev cannot win this militarily. The most they can hope for is that the Russians just get sick of the whole thing. Which could lead to a negotiated peace.

    Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer, @Sean

    Or, I strongly suspect, it could just be part of the ebb and flow of war that will not prove to be decisive one way or the other.

    A Russian reaction that Ukraine will find unpleasant is going to result from this offensive. Dismissals of generals by Zelensky in the past month may have been because they did not want to mount this offensive out of concern such a move might precipitate Russia into drawing on its full strength, which they had not done. The Russian generals will indeed excuse their denuding part of the front line of reliable quality units to reinforce Kherson as robbing peter to pay paul because they lacked a quality reserve for contingences (a military prerequisite).

    The Ruski top brass professional soldiers are going to say this reverse is just a predictable consequence of economising on manpower, and to prevent a recurrence they must be given more troops. In the Vietnam war General Harold K Johnson (the army’s premier tactician) regretted not demanding either a full national mobilsation to fight to win, or withdrawal. We don’t know what Russia can do with a larger balanced force; most military expert commentators said from the very begining Russia had gone in to this invasion with far fewer troops than were needed, and their battalion tactical groups formations were top heavy with artillery and lacked infantry. Russia’s has weathered the initial sanctions storm and can afford to pay for a full national mobilisation now. I think that is going to happen, and the US will give Ukraine even better weapons in response. The result will be a lot of deaths, and a slow writing down of Ukrainian units still motivated enough to use in offensives. Troops are the one thing the West can’t give Ukraine, so a brutish Verdun type campaign is the best hope for Russia.

  131. @James B. Shearer
    @Greta Handel

    "obsessively amplifying Establishment narratives on two subjects in which he’s apparently never shown much interest?"

    What's the mystery, he agrees with the conventional wisdom about many things.

    As for 'obsessively' covid and Ukraine are both topical. Naturally he had little reason to post about them 5 years ago.

    He might post more about covid for which there is lots of data to analyse which is sort of his thing except that so many of his commenters are lunatics on the subject.

    Replies: @Not Dale Clevenger

    There were plenty of people posting on the situation in Eastern Europe five years ago. It’s been a major factor in international politics since 2014, and has shaped domestic politics since at least 2016-17.

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @Not Dale Clevenger

    "There were plenty of people posting on the situation in Eastern Europe five years ago. .."

    And many more people were paying no attention.

  132. @Reg Cæsar
    @Polistra

    LaToya Cantrell = Trolley at Canal.



    https://www.louisianatravel.com/sites/default/files/styles/content_slideshow/public/legacy_images/Streetcar-girls_1.jpg?itok=1mNhUixX

    Replies: @HammerJack

    When I was a kid back in the 1970s, we rode the New Orleans streetcars, mainly on St Charles Avenue. Even then we were constantly harassed and menaced by negroes. What’s going on now is nothing new.

    Nice photo though.

  133. @Not Dale Clevenger
    @James B. Shearer

    There were plenty of people posting on the situation in Eastern Europe five years ago. It's been a major factor in international politics since 2014, and has shaped domestic politics since at least 2016-17.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    “There were plenty of people posting on the situation in Eastern Europe five years ago. ..”

    And many more people were paying no attention.

  134. @James B. Shearer
    @PhysicistDave

    "Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began."

    Putin wasn't interested. He thought he could put in a puppet government without much trouble. Not actually a crazy notion but it turned out to be incorrect and now he has problems.

    And half the time you claim Kiev is just an American puppet in which case they had no power to negotiate anything. So do you think Kiev is an independent actor or not?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:

    [Dave]“Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began.”

    [Jimbo]Putin wasn’t interested.

    Actually, Moscow kept warning Kiev and the West to back off.

    But they wouldn’t listen: just a few days before Putin attacked, the slut Kamala Harris went out of her way to encourage Ukraine to join NATO — that may well have been the trigger.

    Jimbo also wrote:

    And half the time you claim Kiev is just an American puppet in which case they had no power to negotiate anything. So do you think Kiev is an independent actor or not?

    Well, Zelensky would have had to have broken with his masters in the US Deep State to work out a modus vivendi with Putin.

    But, alas, Zelensky lacked the guts to do it. Maybe he thought the US imperials would protect him.

    Hint: the US proconsuls do not keep faith with their local henchmen any more than their British predecessors did.

    Perfidious Yankees, just like perfidious Albion.

    Put not your trust in empires.

    And so his people die.

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @PhysicistDave

    "... that may well have been the trigger."

    That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn't the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Colin Wright

  135. @Jim Christian
    @Almost Missouri

    You read WAY too much msm and watch too much Hollywood. You seem not to notice our putrid generals haven't won in 70 years in any way but grift. Especially, you know nothing of Russian tactics in this thing. The festivities in last week's offensive cost Ukraine 5000 to 10,000 dead and so many wounded there's no room for them in hospitals clear out to
    Liviv. Watch the meat count from this weekend. If Ukraine can show that they can still move troops into the meat grinder, the billions will flow regardless of unpublished results.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Is this reply on the correct comment?

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    @Almost Missouri

    Yep.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  136. @Pixo
    @PhysicistDave

    “ Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.”


    Dave,

    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest. Remember then, when you posted such bull-diarrhea as:

    “The Russians are in the process of taking Kharkov.”

    “Russian marines have now landed in Odessa.”

    “Russia seems to have stopped the bombardment around Kiev, now that they have taken out local military assets and command and control capabilities…

    I assume they will soon be seizing radio and television broadcast facilities.

    Now, anyone want to bet on how soon Zelensky — the Stephen Colbert of the Ukraine — flees the country?”

    Now there’s nothing wrong about making humiliatingly bad predictions, which you also did. But these were not even correct at the time. No, Russia had never “taken out” Ukraine C&C, and no, Russians never landed marines in Odessa, and no, Russia was never in the process of taking Kharkiv.

    Those three statements were all lies you picked up because you’re a gullible stooge who uncritically spams Putin’s propaganda. Have you no shame sir? Perhaps time for some self reflection?

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @PhysicistDave

    My wee little buddy Pixo wrote to me:

    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest.

    No: I thought it would be over quickly because I thought Putin would be much more ruthless and much less humane than he has been.

    And because I thought Zelensky would be much more humane and much less ruthless than he has been.

    Putin could easily have knocked out the Ukrainian infrastructure: electric power plants, water and sewage treatment plants, bridges, etc. So far, he has chosen not to do so — I think because he wants to have friendly relations with the Ukrainian people when the war is over.

    And Zelensky has thrown his people into a meat grinder even though they have no hope of winning this war militarily.

    Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @PhysicistDave

    "... I think because he wants to have friendly relations with the Ukrainian people when the war is over."

    If true just more evidence that Putin is out of touch with reality.

    , @Corvinus
    @PhysicistDave

    “Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.“

    You mean Putin, the oligarch and dictator.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  137. @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    @PhysicistDave

    I’m pretty sure Sailer’s interest is in why Kherson was chosen, among all other opportunities on a 1000 km front, to be the location of the Ukrainian counter offensive.

    It isn’t surprising to anyone following these discussions that that would be lost on you.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    A little girl called SimplePseudonymicHandle wrote to me:

    I’m pretty sure Sailer’s interest is in why Kherson was chosen, among all other opportunities on a 1000 km front, to be the location of the Ukrainian counter offensive.

    It isn’t surprising to anyone following these discussions that that would be lost on you.

    Put your dolly aside, little girl. That’s a nice girl. Now come here and let me show you a thing called a “map.”

    See this area up here in the corner: that is called the “northeast corner” of the “map.” And that is the area that nice Mr. Sailer has been talking about, with towns with names like Kupyansk and Kharkov.

    And, you see, Kherson is not in that part of the map at all, little child. It is in a part of the country called “the southwest.” Not the part that nice Mr. Sailer was discussing at all.

    Oh, never mind — go back to playing with your dolly. You may be forty years old, but you will have to just spend your life playing with your little dolly.

  138. @PhysicistDave
    @Pixo

    My wee little buddy Pixo wrote to me:


    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest.
     
    No: I thought it would be over quickly because I thought Putin would be much more ruthless and much less humane than he has been.

    And because I thought Zelensky would be much more humane and much less ruthless than he has been.

    Putin could easily have knocked out the Ukrainian infrastructure: electric power plants, water and sewage treatment plants, bridges, etc. So far, he has chosen not to do so -- I think because he wants to have friendly relations with the Ukrainian people when the war is over.

    And Zelensky has thrown his people into a meat grinder even though they have no hope of winning this war militarily.

    Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer, @Corvinus

    “… I think because he wants to have friendly relations with the Ukrainian people when the war is over.”

    If true just more evidence that Putin is out of touch with reality.

  139. @PhysicistDave
    @James B. Shearer

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:


    [Dave]“Which is what a lot of us have been calling for and which Kiev should have pursued before this whole tragedy began.”

    [Jimbo]Putin wasn’t interested.
     
    Actually, Moscow kept warning Kiev and the West to back off.

    But they wouldn't listen: just a few days before Putin attacked, the slut Kamala Harris went out of her way to encourage Ukraine to join NATO -- that may well have been the trigger.

    Jimbo also wrote:

    And half the time you claim Kiev is just an American puppet in which case they had no power to negotiate anything. So do you think Kiev is an independent actor or not?
     
    Well, Zelensky would have had to have broken with his masters in the US Deep State to work out a modus vivendi with Putin.

    But, alas, Zelensky lacked the guts to do it. Maybe he thought the US imperials would protect him.

    Hint: the US proconsuls do not keep faith with their local henchmen any more than their British predecessors did.

    Perfidious Yankees, just like perfidious Albion.

    Put not your trust in empires.

    And so his people die.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    “… that may well have been the trigger.”

    That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn’t the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @James B. Shearer

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:


    [Dave]just a few days before Putin attacked, the slut Kamala Harris went out of her way to encourage Ukraine to join NATO — that may well have been the trigger.

    [Jimbo]That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn’t the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.
     
    It would not be a stupid reason at all.

    The slut Harris is, as they say, "just a heartbeat away" from the Presidency, and Biden is quite clearly non compos mentis. A reasonable person would assume that the slut Harris spoke for the US government: indeed, it would be hard to think otherwise.

    And the message was that the US is not going to let up in its attempts to extend the US Military Occupation Empire (AKA NATO) across all of Europe.

    Let's step back for a moment: the official casus belli consisted of Kiev's violations of the Minsk accords and the attempts of Ukraine to join NATO.

    But we all know that the real underlying issue, of which these are just symptoms, is the insistence by the US that it is the World Hegemon, that its "Rules-Based International Order" consists of whatever rules the US Deep State lays out this week, even if they contradict the rules laid out last week.

    And Moscow and Beijing have made the decision that this "World Order" is not tolerable.

    And so they are ending it.

    Maybe the slut's speech intentionally poking the Russian Bear was the final straw, maybe Putin had already decided to move -- we will never know for sure.

    But what is clear is that both Beijing and Moscow have made a decision that the US Deep State will no longer rule the planet.

    And they will prevail.

    Empires are ephemeral.

    Replies: @megabar

    , @Colin Wright
    @James B. Shearer

    'That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn’t the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.'

    It wasn't Putin that decided on war.

    It was us. Putin drew a line in the sand last December. The administration was casting about for something to distract Americans from their catastrophic domestic policies in general and to give Biden something else to talk about in his State of the Union Address in particular.

    So they crossed Putin's line in the sand. Bingo. You poke the growling Pit Bull in the eye with a stick and he bites you.

    Congratulations. If you like, you can even blame the Pit Bull.

    Replies: @HA

  140. @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @PhysicistDave

    These are not good analogies: French in Russia, Germans in France in WWI and USSR in WWII, are examples taking enemy territory but not having destroyed the enemy in the field. This requires supplying the army in a hostile territory, and extending the front that's exposed to counterattacks and encirclements.

    The Ukrainians have been able to "pinprick" Russian supply lines just as Soviet partisans had been able to disrupt German supply lines.

    This situation is after an overconfident enemy, having taking vast swath of my own territory but failing to inflict a strategic defeat of my army, and now able to stage counterattacks on my own territory to prolong a stalemate. A better analogy* is-- the Second Sino-Japanese War.

    The Japanese were able to take in 1937-8 the most economically productive regions of China, but failed to destroy the Chinese army in the field and cut off it from outside support.
    https://i.postimg.cc/8PfF91cX/Theaters-of-Chinese-National-Revolutionary-Army.png
    Instead the Chinese launched a counteroffensive in 1939, that even though did not achieve its objectives, caught the Japanese by massive shock, and began planning for a strategic retreat to Manchuria.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939–1940_Winter_Offensive

    But after observing their German ally's victory in France, the Japanese sought to take advantage by advancing into French Indochina and to cut off one of Chiang Kai-shek's last supply routes. This led to an ominous series of escalations as we all know.

    * Historic Parallels between the Ukraine War and the Sino-Japanese War, By Keikichi Takahashi
    https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/historic-parallels-between-the-ukraine-war-and-the-sino-japanese-war/

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    China Japan and Korea Bromance wrote to me:

    These are not good analogies: French in Russia, Germans in France in WWI and USSR in WWII, are examples taking enemy territory but not having destroyed the enemy in the field. This requires supplying the army in a hostile territory, and extending the front that’s exposed to counterattacks and encirclements.

    Well, I did not claim it was an exact analogy, but it does prove that you do not win a war simply by grabbing territory: you win a war by beating the other army — more precisely,, by creating a situation in which the other army is either unable or unwilling to continue fighting.

    I don’t think you disagree with me on that.

    CJK also wrote:

    A better analogy* is– the Second Sino-Japanese War.

    And I’ll grant that you know more about that example than I do. Thanks for your information.

  141. @James B. Shearer
    @PhysicistDave

    "... that may well have been the trigger."

    That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn't the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Colin Wright

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:

    [Dave]just a few days before Putin attacked, the slut Kamala Harris went out of her way to encourage Ukraine to join NATO — that may well have been the trigger.

    [Jimbo]That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn’t the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.

    It would not be a stupid reason at all.

    The slut Harris is, as they say, “just a heartbeat away” from the Presidency, and Biden is quite clearly non compos mentis. A reasonable person would assume that the slut Harris spoke for the US government: indeed, it would be hard to think otherwise.

    And the message was that the US is not going to let up in its attempts to extend the US Military Occupation Empire (AKA NATO) across all of Europe.

    Let’s step back for a moment: the official casus belli consisted of Kiev’s violations of the Minsk accords and the attempts of Ukraine to join NATO.

    But we all know that the real underlying issue, of which these are just symptoms, is the insistence by the US that it is the World Hegemon, that its “Rules-Based International Order” consists of whatever rules the US Deep State lays out this week, even if they contradict the rules laid out last week.

    And Moscow and Beijing have made the decision that this “World Order” is not tolerable.

    And so they are ending it.

    Maybe the slut’s speech intentionally poking the Russian Bear was the final straw, maybe Putin had already decided to move — we will never know for sure.

    But what is clear is that both Beijing and Moscow have made a decision that the US Deep State will no longer rule the planet.

    And they will prevail.

    Empires are ephemeral.

    • Replies: @megabar
    @PhysicistDave

    > you win a war by beating the other army — more precisely,, by creating a situation in which the other army is either unable or unwilling to continue fighting.

    That strikes me as about right. It is always possible to quibble over semantics, but the general point appears sound.

    Now, territory may be a means to win -- by taking and holding territory, you may inflict strategic penalties to the other side, which in turn can inflict military or morale losses as they try to retake it. Such conflation makes it appear that territory is sometimes the path to victory. But none of that alters the principle as you stated it.

    Territory gains in the Ukraine war are not finalized, so we can't really say much yet. Based on maps, my overall sense is that Russia has gained ground, but not easily, and not without setbacks.

    While maps are a fairly unbiased snapshot, they say nothing about underlying changes in the capacity to fight. Which is why territory change can be sudden and unexpected.

  142. The best Peckinpah film by far is “Salad Days” here’s a little taste of it..

  143. @Colin Wright
    @SunBakedSuburb

    'When you’re the skipper of a steel tube worried about depth charges, crushing pressure, and the mental health of your confined crew, a little give and take is good for morale.'

    I just doubt the atmosphere on the (all-volunteer) U-boats -- particularly in 1941 -- was like that.

    For better or worse, I'm convinced Germany was dominated by true believers at that moment in time. A good introduction to the zeitgeist is Seig Heil! The Letters of Tank Gunner Karl Fuchs, 1937-1941. Young Karl was killed outside Moscow in December 1941. No retrospective editing.

    There were several reasons the Germans fought so well. One was that they believed. At no point was this truer than in 1941. In that respect, I say The Boat is peddling comforting crap.

    ...good film otherwise, of course. It'd be interesting, though, to reread the book the film is based on -- Lothar Gunther-Buchheim's The Boat, if I recall aright. It's either a memoir or a fictionalized memoir. I wonder if he portrays the Germans quite as the film does. Were they as skeptical of final victory, as hostile to Nazism as the film would have them?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Peter Akuleyev

    Yes, the Captain in the book is even more cynical than in the movie. Talks admiringly about Churchhill. Interestingly he is engaged to a “Nazibraut”, who is apparently a fanatical believer. I think the movie is probably fairly accurate as far as attitudes were concerned. The German officer corps generally detested Nazi party members, whom they saw as mediocre careerists. Enlisted men resented being subjected to propaganda when they cared about booze, women and food. Hitler was a also a complete landlubber and never all that popular with the Navy, possibly because he himself was not a big fan of the Navy. He envisioned Germany as a land and air power. There was always a lot of sneaky admiration for the British navy among German naval officers, which is not surprising if you think about it.

  144. “the great talking rabbit novel Watership Down is a retelling of […] Operation Market Garden”

    Bullshit.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Rollory


    “the great talking rabbit novel Watership Down is a retelling of […] Operation Market Garden”
     
    "Bullsh!t."

    You know, you could always just stick a few words into a search engine, Rollory, and see what comes up. You're less likely to make an ass of yourself that way, though I'm getting the sense you're used to that.


    Extracts from the autobiography of Watership Down author Richard Adams, show his tale of a beleaguered band of rabbits was based on the characters and exploits of fellow officers of the Royal Army Service Corps 250th Company. Lt Richard Adams reported to 1st Airborne Division’s Fulbeck HQ early in 1944.

    Maj John Gifford shaped the character of Hazel, the rabbits’ leader, while Capt Paddy Kavanagh inspired the character of brave Bigwig - a courageous fighter. Captain Kavanagh died holding off enemy fire while his platoon escaped.
     

    More info on Operation Market Garden along with a mention of Paddy Kavanagh.
  145. @Greta Handel
    Here we go again. Even though I’m usually Whimmed out of timely participation, these threads are interesting as dissidents like PhysicistDave draw the flak of HA, Jack D, John Johnson, Corvinus, et al.

    But can anyone around here recall any coolly detached posts about Warball preceding Ukraine? It reminds me of how COVID inspired Mr. Sailer’s sudden interest in virology, another field beyond HBD where he has accepted the Establishment narratives.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Pixo, @Almost Missouri

    can anyone around here recall any coolly detached posts about Warball preceding Ukraine?

    Are you asking if Steve has covered military matters before the this current Ukraine conflict?

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Almost Missouri

    Yes, that’s my question. Especially so obsessively.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  146. @Almost Missouri
    @Greta Handel


    can anyone around here recall any coolly detached posts about Warball preceding Ukraine?
     
    Are you asking if Steve has covered military matters before the this current Ukraine conflict?

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    Yes, that’s my question. Especially so obsessively.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Greta Handel

    Yes, I'd say he has, though usually with a bit more historical distance.

    He was more skeptical of NATO in the past. See this very clear-eyed post on ethnic cleansing in the Balkans for example:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/a-better-way-in-kosovo/

    "Obsessively" is relative. Anatoly Karlin, who doesn't technically blog here anymore has perpetually-renewing threads on the Ukraine war where the partisans go at each other for a thousand comments at a time. Looks like there were twenty of them since the recent war began. Not bad for a guy who isn't even blogging.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

  147. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    The Yankees are still here, Dave.

  148. @Almost Missouri
    @Jim Christian

    Is this reply on the correct comment?

    Replies: @Jim Christian

    Yep.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Jim Christian

    Then I don't see any connection to the comment.

  149. River crossings was actually one thing the Soviets did well in the later stages of WWII. Usually when a Soviet offensive was reaching the end, they would always seize bridgeheads to facilitate the next offensive. The encirclement of Stalingrad was carried out from bridgeheads they had seized across the Don river.

  150. @Jim Christian
    @Almost Missouri

    Yep.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Then I don’t see any connection to the comment.

  151. @mc23
    @Cortes

    Thankfully Khan is a safe name for a dog.Why people my think he was even named after the present day mayor of London.

    The mascot of the RAF squadron that carried out a heroic attack to destroy major dams in Ruhr Valley was less fortunate.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12148008/what-dambusters-dog-called/

    Replies: @Cortes

    Indeed.

    My wife laughed when I told her about being puzzled by hearing a black Labrador (traditionally named the same way as Wing Cdr Gibson’s) being called “Benson” – I’d never heard of the TV series “Soap.” That must’ve been around 1990.

  152. @PhysicistDave
    @James B. Shearer

    James B. Shearer wrote to me:


    [Dave]just a few days before Putin attacked, the slut Kamala Harris went out of her way to encourage Ukraine to join NATO — that may well have been the trigger.

    [Jimbo]That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn’t the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.
     
    It would not be a stupid reason at all.

    The slut Harris is, as they say, "just a heartbeat away" from the Presidency, and Biden is quite clearly non compos mentis. A reasonable person would assume that the slut Harris spoke for the US government: indeed, it would be hard to think otherwise.

    And the message was that the US is not going to let up in its attempts to extend the US Military Occupation Empire (AKA NATO) across all of Europe.

    Let's step back for a moment: the official casus belli consisted of Kiev's violations of the Minsk accords and the attempts of Ukraine to join NATO.

    But we all know that the real underlying issue, of which these are just symptoms, is the insistence by the US that it is the World Hegemon, that its "Rules-Based International Order" consists of whatever rules the US Deep State lays out this week, even if they contradict the rules laid out last week.

    And Moscow and Beijing have made the decision that this "World Order" is not tolerable.

    And so they are ending it.

    Maybe the slut's speech intentionally poking the Russian Bear was the final straw, maybe Putin had already decided to move -- we will never know for sure.

    But what is clear is that both Beijing and Moscow have made a decision that the US Deep State will no longer rule the planet.

    And they will prevail.

    Empires are ephemeral.

    Replies: @megabar

    > you win a war by beating the other army — more precisely,, by creating a situation in which the other army is either unable or unwilling to continue fighting.

    That strikes me as about right. It is always possible to quibble over semantics, but the general point appears sound.

    Now, territory may be a means to win — by taking and holding territory, you may inflict strategic penalties to the other side, which in turn can inflict military or morale losses as they try to retake it. Such conflation makes it appear that territory is sometimes the path to victory. But none of that alters the principle as you stated it.

    Territory gains in the Ukraine war are not finalized, so we can’t really say much yet. Based on maps, my overall sense is that Russia has gained ground, but not easily, and not without setbacks.

    While maps are a fairly unbiased snapshot, they say nothing about underlying changes in the capacity to fight. Which is why territory change can be sudden and unexpected.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  153. @Pixo
    @Colin Wright

    I thought both Dunkirk and 1917 were incredible, some of the best movies I’ve ever seen.

    A couple improbable scenes wouldn’t bother me, though too many kills the movie. I stopped watching Vikings because the battle scenes were too absurd. The similar Last Kingdom wasn’t terribly realistic either, but much better on that front.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘…A couple improbable scenes wouldn’t bother me…’

    Dunkirk could be chalked up to different tastes — but 1917? Mountain streams in Flanders and motorized infantry swanning about behind the German lines in 1917 still come to mind. Oh yeah — there was the intact phone line running across the front.

    That’s just the technical improbabilities. I also recall the behavior of the officers as being way off for 1917 England. It wasn’t a film about the First World War. It was a film about the film-makers ignorance of the First World War.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Colin Wright

    “ It was a film about the film-makers ignorance of the First World War.”

    Fortunately my ignorance equaled theirs so I enjoyed it.

    The long uninterrupted takes were impressive.

  154. @James B. Shearer
    @PhysicistDave

    "... that may well have been the trigger."

    That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn't the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Colin Wright

    ‘That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn’t the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.’

    It wasn’t Putin that decided on war.

    It was us. Putin drew a line in the sand last December. The administration was casting about for something to distract Americans from their catastrophic domestic policies in general and to give Biden something else to talk about in his State of the Union Address in particular.

    So they crossed Putin’s line in the sand. Bingo. You poke the growling Pit Bull in the eye with a stick and he bites you.

    Congratulations. If you like, you can even blame the Pit Bull.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Colin Wright

    "It was us. Putin drew a line in the sand last December."

    You got a weird way of trying to deflect blame, given that this was a line he clearly didn't have to draw (as demonstrated by Nuland and Putin himself), and one that Russia had previously agreed it would not draw.

    If I draw a line around your house and tell you that I'll shoot you if you dare come inside it, you think a judge would take me seriously if I subsequently "explain" to him that the shooting is really your fault?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  155. @Greta Handel
    @Almost Missouri

    Yes, that’s my question. Especially so obsessively.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Yes, I’d say he has, though usually with a bit more historical distance.

    He was more skeptical of NATO in the past. See this very clear-eyed post on ethnic cleansing in the Balkans for example:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/a-better-way-in-kosovo/

    “Obsessively” is relative. Anatoly Karlin, who doesn’t technically blog here anymore has perpetually-renewing threads on the Ukraine war where the partisans go at each other for a thousand comments at a time. Looks like there were twenty of them since the recent war began. Not bad for a guy who isn’t even blogging.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks.

    FWIW, I thought that Anatoly Karlin — nasty know-it-all, as opposed to Mr. Sailer’s snarky passive aggression — had as low a reach/grasp ratio as anyone published here.

    He, too, fell hard for the COVID dempanic. Big sword, yet terrified to ride the subway.

    Replies: @Greta Handel, @Almost Missouri, @Corvinus

  156. @PhysicistDave
    @Pixo

    My wee little buddy Pixo wrote to me:


    You used to be focused on taking or holding territory back in February when Russia appeared to be winning its aggressive war of conquest.
     
    No: I thought it would be over quickly because I thought Putin would be much more ruthless and much less humane than he has been.

    And because I thought Zelensky would be much more humane and much less ruthless than he has been.

    Putin could easily have knocked out the Ukrainian infrastructure: electric power plants, water and sewage treatment plants, bridges, etc. So far, he has chosen not to do so -- I think because he wants to have friendly relations with the Ukrainian people when the war is over.

    And Zelensky has thrown his people into a meat grinder even though they have no hope of winning this war militarily.

    Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer, @Corvinus

    “Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.“

    You mean Putin, the oligarch and dictator.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Corvinus

    My pal Benito Corvinus wrote to me:


    [Dave]“Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.“

    [Benito]You mean Putin, the oligarch and dictator.
     
    Putin does standup?

    Wonders never cease!

    But I think you know that Putin is the legally elected President of Russia who still has the support of the majority of his citizens.

    As opposed to Fascist Joe who "won" the election in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution and whose own party does not even want him to run in 2024.

    The US is now a dictatorship: look at the raid by Gestapo thugs that just happened in Jersey against Lisa Gallagher based on an anonymous tip that she was in DC on January 6. She was able to prove that she was not in DC, but she had a right to be there, had she chosen to be, under the First Amendment, and the Gestapo thugs were not entitled to question that right.

    When we restore the Republic, the first task is to send all these Gestapo thugs to Gitmo.

    No due process, just as they treat others. Let them rot there.

    Forever.
  157. @PhysicistDave
    Steve,

    You still seem to be focused on taking or holding territory.

    That is not what war has been about for more than two centuries.

    The goal is to get the other side's army to stop fighting -- either because they can't fight (they are dead, captured, or injured, bereft of their command or unit structure, or out of supplies) or because they are no longer willing to fight (they see that the struggle is hopeless, or that it is just not worth the cost, or that they no longer have popular or regime support).

    That is all that matters.


    Again and again and again, armies have taken huge swathes of territory and lost. IN WW I, the Allies never invaded Germany; on Armistice Day, the Germans still held part of France.

    But they still lost.

    Gain territory, lose territory, advance, retreat, none of it matters until one side or the other either cannot or will not fight.

    I'm surprised you do not know this: most of the guys in your and my generation had a rather keen interest in war -- WW II, which our dads or uncles or grand-dads had fought in, and Vietnam, which our brothers or ourselves might have to fight in. Both wars are examples of my point.

    Replies: @Thea, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Greta Handel, @SimplePseudonymicHandle, @James Speaks, @dearieme, @Pixo, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms, @Daniel H, @Gamecock, @Gamecock

    Dave, can you help me find Saigon on a map? I can’t even find South Vietnam.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Gamecock

    Yes, that illustrates "get the other side to stop fighting."

  158. @Almost Missouri
    @Greta Handel

    Yes, I'd say he has, though usually with a bit more historical distance.

    He was more skeptical of NATO in the past. See this very clear-eyed post on ethnic cleansing in the Balkans for example:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/a-better-way-in-kosovo/

    "Obsessively" is relative. Anatoly Karlin, who doesn't technically blog here anymore has perpetually-renewing threads on the Ukraine war where the partisans go at each other for a thousand comments at a time. Looks like there were twenty of them since the recent war began. Not bad for a guy who isn't even blogging.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    Thanks.

    FWIW, I thought that Anatoly Karlin — nasty know-it-all, as opposed to Mr. Sailer’s snarky passive aggression — had as low a reach/grasp ratio as anyone published here.

    He, too, fell hard for the COVID dempanic. Big sword, yet terrified to ride the subway.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Greta Handel

    * grasp/reach ratio

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Greta Handel

    I didn't agree with Anatoly about everything, the covid vaccines being a big divergence*, but he did successfully explain a lot about Russia to Westerners such as myself whose only other source of information would have been the flagrantly dishonest Western press.

    ---------

    *To be fair to him about this, the Russian covid vaccines are a less radical type than the Western mRNA injections. I can't say if the evaluation, rollout, and follow up were as corrupt as the mRNA vaccines, but they could hardly have been worse.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    , @Corvinus
    @Greta Handel

    “Anatoly Karlin — nasty know-it-all“

    You fit right in.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

  159. @Greta Handel
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks.

    FWIW, I thought that Anatoly Karlin — nasty know-it-all, as opposed to Mr. Sailer’s snarky passive aggression — had as low a reach/grasp ratio as anyone published here.

    He, too, fell hard for the COVID dempanic. Big sword, yet terrified to ride the subway.

    Replies: @Greta Handel, @Almost Missouri, @Corvinus

    * grasp/reach ratio

  160. @Rollory
    "the great talking rabbit novel Watership Down is a retelling of [...] Operation Market Garden"

    Bullshit.

    Replies: @HA

    “the great talking rabbit novel Watership Down is a retelling of […] Operation Market Garden”

    “Bullsh!t.”

    You know, you could always just stick a few words into a search engine, Rollory, and see what comes up. You’re less likely to make an ass of yourself that way, though I’m getting the sense you’re used to that.

    Extracts from the autobiography of Watership Down author Richard Adams, show his tale of a beleaguered band of rabbits was based on the characters and exploits of fellow officers of the Royal Army Service Corps 250th Company. Lt Richard Adams reported to 1st Airborne Division’s Fulbeck HQ early in 1944.

    Maj John Gifford shaped the character of Hazel, the rabbits’ leader, while Capt Paddy Kavanagh inspired the character of brave Bigwig – a courageous fighter. Captain Kavanagh died holding off enemy fire while his platoon escaped.

    More info on Operation Market Garden along with a mention of Paddy Kavanagh.

  161. @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev


    One interesting aspect of the Russo-Uke war so far is the inability of either side to use air power very effectively.
     
    That's an interesting point. I too tend to attribute it to increasingly cheap and effective air defense systems. Even before the present era, even the vaunted US Air Force had to devote enormous effort to suppressing even mediocre air defenses, so expensive aircraft have always been vulnerable to relatively cheaper anti-aircraft, but the USA (and almost only the USA) was wealthy enough to pay the massive premium to overcome that asymmetry.

    I think another factor is the East's (Ukraine + Russia + China(?)) apparent lack of reliable stealth airframes such as the USAF typically uses in early waves as anti-anti-aircraft. Stealth is economically a little peculiar. Like software, it is very expensive to develop, but once developed is relatively cheap to deploy, so crossing this threshold separates the airpower sheep from the airpower goats.

    Also agree that drones are changing the equation, being cheaper in treasure and also in sparing the blood of pilots who are typically commissioned officers and so whose loss is politically more costly than enlisted ranks. The Achilles' Heel of drones would seem to be the com-links—often satellite—the hacking of which would compromise the entire air branch at one stroke, but so far no one has cracked this.


    Drones seem to be about where air power was in WWI.
     
    Like with airpower evolution post-WWI, I think we can expect to see the skies of future conflicts to be increasingly filled with drones, and the ground activity increasingly organized around counter-drone measures.

    A lack of effective air power should make river crossings easier for both sides, if they can move quickly enough to avoid artillery.
     
    Increasingly widespread and cheap drone technology = increasingly easy to enter the air war = increasingly expensive to protect ground forces = increasing dominance of air presence over ground presence = ground presence increasingly confined to close terrain (woods, jungle, mountain, urban, or literally underground).

    In other words, I think drones are the new effective air power, and they will be even more hazardous to ground forces than the old effective air power was. The Swarm cometh.

    (That Slaughterbot video presents the drone swarm as a hazard to civil life, which it may be, but I think it will be first felt on the battlefield where the swarm will break the Iron (or baser metal) Equation that it takes a man's weight in ammunition to destroy him on the battlefield. In the low-birthrate world, infantry are already the scarce military commodity. When infantry can be massacred at Walmart price-points, what then? Probably war—conflict short of strategic nuclear war—will become increasingly decentralized, increasingly para-military, increasingly indistinguishable from terrorism, organized crime, piracy, politcal activism, political coercion and propaganda, to the extent you don't already consider those things to be a type of warfare.)

    Also note that the navies of the world, meaning foremost the US Navy, seem not to have digested the implications of the coming drone dominance. Future navies will have to be increasingly submarine, and even submarine vessels will be subject to inevitable submarine drone dominance.

    Replies: @Jim Christian, @Anonymous, @Thoughts, @CAJZ

    See Youtube Video on hypothetical battle between F35 vs S400.

    It takes from 10x-20x as much aviation capital to take on a single S-400 battery with minimal casualties.

    As for future drone dominance, I think pretty much everyone can see this coming. China’s new twin seat model J-20s are pretty much an acknowledgement of this. Manned stealth fighters will primarily become frontline C&C nodes while drones carry the bulk of the ordinance.

  162. @Greta Handel
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks.

    FWIW, I thought that Anatoly Karlin — nasty know-it-all, as opposed to Mr. Sailer’s snarky passive aggression — had as low a reach/grasp ratio as anyone published here.

    He, too, fell hard for the COVID dempanic. Big sword, yet terrified to ride the subway.

    Replies: @Greta Handel, @Almost Missouri, @Corvinus

    I didn’t agree with Anatoly about everything, the covid vaccines being a big divergence*, but he did successfully explain a lot about Russia to Westerners such as myself whose only other source of information would have been the flagrantly dishonest Western press.

    ———

    *To be fair to him about this, the Russian covid vaccines are a less radical type than the Western mRNA injections. I can’t say if the evaluation, rollout, and follow up were as corrupt as the mRNA vaccines, but they could hardly have been worse.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Almost Missouri

    Maybe he should have stayed in his lane.

    I was only an occasional reader, but Mr. Karlin seemed insecure and needful of appearing cooler and smarter than his mere audience on every subject, bristling when challenged or questioned. Who Cares About Hunter? (October 26, 2020) is an example.

    There must have been something special that eludes me. Mr. Unz still keeps a room furnished for the old fans to gather, but I’ve never peeked in.

  163. @Captain Tripps
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Stalingrad - the Axis ultimately committed 1 Million + forces to the battle, over 400,000 of them Germans. Hard to find reliable sources on accurate figures, but the Germans suffered ~283K casualties, 91K+ as POWs. The Russians were harsh in their treatment; the POWs were forced to conduct foot marches multiple times to various POW camps through the war. The Soviets only returned the 5,000 left alive to Germany in 1955.

    Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    From Stalingrad: Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever? (1959)

    In civilian life I’m a scientist. A botanist. A man who studies flowers, plants and their growth. It was fate’s bitter irony that took me to the Volga.

    Im zivilen Beruf bin ich Naturwissenschaftler. Botaniker. Ein Mann, der Blumen, Pflanzen und ihr Wachstum studiert. Ein bittere scherz des Schicksals, die mich an die Wolga verschlagen mit.

    When Paulus is informed that he has been promoted by Hitler to Generalfeldmarschall,

    Thank you for being tactful, and not congratulating me.

    Ich danke ihnen für ihren takt, zu dieser Beförderung nicht zu gratulieren.

  164. @Colin Wright
    @Pixo

    '...A couple improbable scenes wouldn’t bother me...'

    Dunkirk could be chalked up to different tastes -- but 1917? Mountain streams in Flanders and motorized infantry swanning about behind the German lines in 1917 still come to mind. Oh yeah -- there was the intact phone line running across the front.

    That's just the technical improbabilities. I also recall the behavior of the officers as being way off for 1917 England. It wasn't a film about the First World War. It was a film about the film-makers ignorance of the First World War.

    Replies: @Pixo

    “ It was a film about the film-makers ignorance of the First World War.”

    Fortunately my ignorance equaled theirs so I enjoyed it.

    The long uninterrupted takes were impressive.

  165. @Almost Missouri
    @Greta Handel

    I didn't agree with Anatoly about everything, the covid vaccines being a big divergence*, but he did successfully explain a lot about Russia to Westerners such as myself whose only other source of information would have been the flagrantly dishonest Western press.

    ---------

    *To be fair to him about this, the Russian covid vaccines are a less radical type than the Western mRNA injections. I can't say if the evaluation, rollout, and follow up were as corrupt as the mRNA vaccines, but they could hardly have been worse.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    Maybe he should have stayed in his lane.

    I was only an occasional reader, but Mr. Karlin seemed insecure and needful of appearing cooler and smarter than his mere audience on every subject, bristling when challenged or questioned. Who Cares About Hunter? (October 26, 2020) is an example.

    There must have been something special that eludes me. Mr. Unz still keeps a room furnished for the old fans to gather, but I’ve never peeked in.

  166. @Gamecock
    @PhysicistDave

    Dave, can you help me find Saigon on a map? I can't even find South Vietnam.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Yes, that illustrates “get the other side to stop fighting.”

  167. @The Alarmist
    The Ukies are wasting troops and materiel building a salient into which the remainder of their troops and materiel will be encircled and slaughtered. Slawa Ukraini.

    Read up on the WW2 battle of Kursk.

    Replies: @Muggles, @Eric Novak

    Yes indeed, the glorious Soros brigades on the march East just found themselves in another Clausewitz cauldron. This is what happens when Sailer and Salon congratulate erstwhile pig feed salesman for “the greatest tactical advance since WWII.”

  168. @Corvinus
    @PhysicistDave

    “Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.“

    You mean Putin, the oligarch and dictator.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    My pal Benito Corvinus wrote to me:

    [Dave]“Probably not a good idea to let a pornographic standup comic lead your country: not the best background fro dealing with reality.“

    [Benito]You mean Putin, the oligarch and dictator.

    Putin does standup?

    Wonders never cease!

    But I think you know that Putin is the legally elected President of Russia who still has the support of the majority of his citizens.

    As opposed to Fascist Joe who “won” the election in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution and whose own party does not even want him to run in 2024.

    The US is now a dictatorship: look at the raid by Gestapo thugs that just happened in Jersey against Lisa Gallagher based on an anonymous tip that she was in DC on January 6. She was able to prove that she was not in DC, but she had a right to be there, had she chosen to be, under the First Amendment, and the Gestapo thugs were not entitled to question that right.

    When we restore the Republic, the first task is to send all these Gestapo thugs to Gitmo.

    No due process, just as they treat others. Let them rot there.

    Forever.

    • Agree: J.Ross
    • LOL: Corvinus
  169. @PhysicistDave
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Peter Akuleyev wrote to me:


    The goal of the Germans in World War II was to take other people’s territory (most importantly Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) and hold it, forever.

    Putin’s goal is to take Ukrainian territory he believe should be Russian and hold it, forever. Ukraine’s goal is to retake territory that they believe should be Ukrainian and hold it, forever.

    Destroying the other side’s army, in both wars, is the means to an end, not the end in itself
     
    Well, sometimes the ultimate goal is taking territory, sometimes not. What territory did the US seize after Gulf War I or II? We certainly did not make Iraq the 51st state!

    The ultimate goal of wars varies -- sometimes seizing territory, sometimes not.

    But seizing territory per se is never the key to winning a war. The key to winning is to create a situation in which the other side's army is either unable or unwilling to continue fighting.

    Sometimes that involves seizing territory. Often not.

    How many square miles of German territory did the Allies hold on November 11, 1918? How much Allied territory did the Germans hold?

    And who won?

    Replies: @dimples

    The only goals for American wars are:

    1. Make money for the military industrial complex.
    2. Fun with guns and missiles for the participants.
    3. Exciting and pseudo-important jobs for the Deep State bureaucracy.

    Any other supposed goals are just the cover story for the dopes.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @dimples

    This explains how a flag officer could be cool with hasty surrender to illiterates who don't understand how to aim.

  170. @Peter Akuleyev
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    You are correct, you can conquer territory for tactical reasons or for strategic reasons. Hitler is a good example of a leader who often seemed to confuse tactical and strategic aims.

    Conquering and holding territory is not the only goal in war but for Putin in 2022, it very much is. He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine. As soon as Russian troops leave a piece of Ukrainian territory it immediately reverts to being “Nazi and militarized”. Some commenters here seem to be in denial about that fact. Russian nationalists are very aware of that fact and are calling for a massive increase in committed troops.

    Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @PhysicistDave, @J.Ross

    He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine.

    Americans send forth Americans and American weapons. Putin swats them, then waits for more. Demilitarization = blow up military hardware. Denazification = kill every Ukrainian who points a rifle East.
    This was the first plan; now they also will attack infrastructure. America completely knocks out all civilian infrastructure as our first task (many recent examples). This might’ve been part of what Putin meant in earlier claims of trying to not target civilians.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @J.Ross

    “Denazification = kill every Ukrainian who points a rifle East”

    That’s murder, not denazification, of a free people, who have absolutely no ties to Nazism, defending their homeland from invasion. Are you really this idiotic?

  171. @dimples
    @PhysicistDave

    The only goals for American wars are:

    1. Make money for the military industrial complex.
    2. Fun with guns and missiles for the participants.
    3. Exciting and pseudo-important jobs for the Deep State bureaucracy.

    Any other supposed goals are just the cover story for the dopes.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    This explains how a flag officer could be cool with hasty surrender to illiterates who don’t understand how to aim.

  172. @Daniel H
    The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Almost Missouri, @IHTG, @Feryl, @theMann, @Yngvar, @Lurker, @Lurker

    There is another reason for those movies:

    After the outbreak of the second world peace American movies became a popular distraction in Europe, but post-war currency controls made repatriating all the cash difficult. Since there were no restrictions on reels, Hollywoods solution to the problem was to spend it making films in Europe, hoping to recoup the money in the North American marked. It worked, with movies set in Europe becoming a genre on its own.

    The James Bond franchise took this business problem solution to its logical end, with the film crews traveling, and emptying bank accounts, all over the world.

  173. @Unit472
    If you have not ever seen the WW2 William Wyler Documentary " Thunderbolt" its worth watching. Much better than his more famous film "Memphis Belle" it follows US P-47 fighter bombers flying from Corsica to cut German supply lines in Italy. Its in color and is available on Youtube. Here geography was important. The big rivers in Central and Eastern Europe ran north and south but Germany held both banks and the bridges were steel and relatively impervious to aerial bombardment. Hitting a tiny steel ribbon crossing a river from high or medium altitude hard enough to take it down was almost impossible until the 1970's when laser guided bombs could score direct hits.

    However in Italy moving supplies from North to South required crossing many small river valleys with old, even ancient, stone bridges and with the US having total air supremacy those P-47 Thunderbolts could gather and dive bomb a bridge and just one or two hits with 500 lbs bombs take them down. Then, as Wyler shows, the fun began. Freed of their bomb load the P-47s could get down low and follow train tracks and roads looking for trains, truck convoys or even a guy in a field they didn't like. With 8 .50 caliber machineguns per P-47 the volume of fire they produced was enormous and the major risk facing the pilots was debris from secondary explosions if they found a munitions truck or train car

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Look up the book “1000 Destroyed” by Grover C. Hall Jr.

    It used to be online, but appears to have been taken down.

  174. @Daniel H
    The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Almost Missouri, @IHTG, @Feryl, @theMann, @Yngvar, @Lurker, @Lurker

    Yet the supply of WW2 movies has barely ceased. Not as many but still a thing.

  175. @Daniel H
    The best WW II combat movie, IMHO, is Cross of Iron (Iron Cross, whatever) starring James Coburn, James Mason and Maximillian Schell (dir. Sam Peckinpah (of course)). Really good, tight, war drama. I recommend.

    Late 70s, early 80s, few gave a flip about WW II portrayed through cinema anymore. What a contrast from 15-20 years before.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Almost Missouri, @IHTG, @Feryl, @theMann, @Yngvar, @Lurker, @Lurker

    There was a sequel to the great Cross of Iron (1977), called Breakthrough (1979) this time set in France, which I happened to see on TV quite recently. Didn’t even know it existed or that it was a sequel until I’d watched a few minutes. Terrible.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078320/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

  176. @Polistra
    @Polistra

    My bad. Turns out she was right. Just look what goes on back in Coach.

    https://i.ibb.co/FhwrvWm/20220911-072527.jpg

    Replies: @Muggles, @Lurker

    What’s she doing on an aircraft? #culturalappropriation

  177. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:

    The least ‘Nazi’ force was the army. A lot of officers were skeptical of Hitler from the outset – they saw him as a jumped up little corporal with no command experience who had no right to boss them around. The Prussians also disliked him for being an Austrian. Plus there was resentment of the SS, whose leaders made no secret of their desire to take over and supplant the regular army.

    Hitler understood very well that if he screwed up, he wouldn’t be overthrown in a popular revolution, or arrested by any foreign enemy – he would be shot by the army.

  178. @J.Ross
    @Peter Akuleyev


    He really has no other way to accomplish the “Denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine.
     
    Americans send forth Americans and American weapons. Putin swats them, then waits for more. Demilitarization = blow up military hardware. Denazification = kill every Ukrainian who points a rifle East.
    This was the first plan; now they also will attack infrastructure. America completely knocks out all civilian infrastructure as our first task (many recent examples). This might've been part of what Putin meant in earlier claims of trying to not target civilians.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Denazification = kill every Ukrainian who points a rifle East”

    That’s murder, not denazification, of a free people, who have absolutely no ties to Nazism, defending their homeland from invasion. Are you really this idiotic?

  179. @Greta Handel
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks.

    FWIW, I thought that Anatoly Karlin — nasty know-it-all, as opposed to Mr. Sailer’s snarky passive aggression — had as low a reach/grasp ratio as anyone published here.

    He, too, fell hard for the COVID dempanic. Big sword, yet terrified to ride the subway.

    Replies: @Greta Handel, @Almost Missouri, @Corvinus

    “Anatoly Karlin — nasty know-it-all“

    You fit right in.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus used to put so much more into it.

    Why did you drop the Unitarian Sunday School teacher shtick?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  180. @Colin Wright
    @James B. Shearer

    'That would have been an especially stupid reason to go to war. But it wasn’t the trigger, Putin had decided on war some time earlier.'

    It wasn't Putin that decided on war.

    It was us. Putin drew a line in the sand last December. The administration was casting about for something to distract Americans from their catastrophic domestic policies in general and to give Biden something else to talk about in his State of the Union Address in particular.

    So they crossed Putin's line in the sand. Bingo. You poke the growling Pit Bull in the eye with a stick and he bites you.

    Congratulations. If you like, you can even blame the Pit Bull.

    Replies: @HA

    “It was us. Putin drew a line in the sand last December.”

    You got a weird way of trying to deflect blame, given that this was a line he clearly didn’t have to draw (as demonstrated by Nuland and Putin himself), and one that Russia had previously agreed it would not draw.

    If I draw a line around your house and tell you that I’ll shoot you if you dare come inside it, you think a judge would take me seriously if I subsequently “explain” to him that the shooting is really your fault?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @HA

    'If I draw a line around your house and tell you that I’ll shoot you if you dare come inside it, you think a judge would take me seriously if I subsequently “explain” to him that the shooting is really your fault?'

    The question isn't really who was in the right, but who decided to push the button.

    For thirty years, everyone from Henry Kissinger on down has said, 'don't invite the Ukraine to join NATO, Russia won't tolerate that.' Last December, Putin said, 'don't invite the Ukraine to join NATO, I won't tolerate that.'

    We proceed to invite the Ukraine to join NATO.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  181. @Muggles
    @The Alarmist


    The Ukies are wasting troops and materiel building a salient into which the remainder of their troops and materiel will be encircled and slaughtered. Slawa Ukraini.
     
    Another iSteve keyboard General prediction.

    Please promise to come back here in a month to tell us how that worked out.

    I agree that these things could occur, but Ukes aren't clueless and Uncle Sam and friends can pretty well tell them when and how the Russians are counter attacking.

    You should assume, as I do, that the military planners on the scene have better maps and understanding of the details than you do. Of course even then they can get it wrong.

    Hitler had little to no air recon on the eastern front in a detailed and timely manner. He ruined the German offensive in Russia by trying to run the war a thousand miles away from maps in a bunker.

    From far away like we are, the logistics details are murky at best. These usually dictate how such things go. Ukes can pull out to avoid encirclement as well. Russians rely mainly on slow and heavy artillery and tanks, needing rail, good roads/bridges and fuel. Bad weather may eventually become a factor as Putin's blitzkrieg grinds to a halt.

    Since both sides are running short on men and material, I predict some sort of ceasefire and negotiated stand-down before any "decisive victories" on either side. In that case, Putin loses.

    Replies: @JimB

    Since both sides are running short on men and material, I predict some sort of ceasefire and negotiated stand-down before any “decisive victories” on either side. In that case, Putin loses.

    Or the Russians can use an upper atmosphere nuclear detonation to wipe out all the US high tech gear and the Ukrainian internet. Then the US will lose contact with their proxies, and the Russians can resume making Ukranian sausages with their artillery.

  182. @Corvinus
    @Greta Handel

    “Anatoly Karlin — nasty know-it-all“

    You fit right in.

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    Corvinus used to put so much more into it.

    Why did you drop the Unitarian Sunday School teacher shtick?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Greta Handel

    Western Civilization was built by my kind. You’re a clear danger to its health.

  183. @HA
    @Colin Wright

    "It was us. Putin drew a line in the sand last December."

    You got a weird way of trying to deflect blame, given that this was a line he clearly didn't have to draw (as demonstrated by Nuland and Putin himself), and one that Russia had previously agreed it would not draw.

    If I draw a line around your house and tell you that I'll shoot you if you dare come inside it, you think a judge would take me seriously if I subsequently "explain" to him that the shooting is really your fault?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘If I draw a line around your house and tell you that I’ll shoot you if you dare come inside it, you think a judge would take me seriously if I subsequently “explain” to him that the shooting is really your fault?’

    The question isn’t really who was in the right, but who decided to push the button.

    For thirty years, everyone from Henry Kissinger on down has said, ‘don’t invite the Ukraine to join NATO, Russia won’t tolerate that.’ Last December, Putin said, ‘don’t invite the Ukraine to join NATO, I won’t tolerate that.’

    We proceed to invite the Ukraine to join NATO.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Colin Wright

    Which is well within the sovereignty of Ukraine—a white nation—to make its own political decisions. Putin pushed the button to murder his racial brethren.

  184. @Greta Handel
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus used to put so much more into it.

    Why did you drop the Unitarian Sunday School teacher shtick?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Western Civilization was built by my kind. You’re a clear danger to its health.

  185. @Colin Wright
    @HA

    'If I draw a line around your house and tell you that I’ll shoot you if you dare come inside it, you think a judge would take me seriously if I subsequently “explain” to him that the shooting is really your fault?'

    The question isn't really who was in the right, but who decided to push the button.

    For thirty years, everyone from Henry Kissinger on down has said, 'don't invite the Ukraine to join NATO, Russia won't tolerate that.' Last December, Putin said, 'don't invite the Ukraine to join NATO, I won't tolerate that.'

    We proceed to invite the Ukraine to join NATO.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Which is well within the sovereignty of Ukraine—a white nation—to make its own political decisions. Putin pushed the button to murder his racial brethren.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement