Racial Pride/Tribalism and Orthodoxy. Are they compatable?

[TomS]

Astute observations Tom. But as you yankees have no music of your own you had to take ours (Bluegrass, Jazz, Rock and Roll, Blues, R&B, Country, etc.). But oh wait you do have music, Hip-hop and Rap.

SHUT UP!

[Hexapsalms]

Nonsense. To be a proper Orthodox you have to bash and denigrate the West?

The West certainly studies its own contributions to that war, just as the Russian study their own. It's not that anyone is ignoring the other; it's just natural to focus on your own people.

But I never heard any Western historian say that Stalingrad WASN'T a turning point. But so was Normandy. Germany historically (in WWI and WWII) could fight and win a one front war, but not a two front war. The battle plan of the Germans in both wars was to defeat the French first, then knock out Russia. That Germany was defeated in both wars was because neither plan figured that the wars would last as long as they did, nor did some of the German generals of the first war follow the "von Schleiffen Plan" to the letter, nor did they figure on the American entry.

American first landed in North AFrica and helped the British defeat Rommel. Then they moved on Sicily, Cyprus and Italy, which was the 2nd front (France later became the third). This took the whole Mediterranean away from the Germans, not a small task.

The Americans also supplied the Soviet Union with arms and tanks. One German woman from Berlin very angrily told me "what were you people doing giving tanks to the Russians? Why were you friends with the Communists? We could see that the tanks coming down our street were made in America!" We mainly won that war was by outproducing everyone--but make no mistake--that was just one way we contributed to the war effort.

Stalin harped on the Allies to invade France, but he was unwilling to wait until we were ready. He just wanted the Allies to send warm bodies over to get uselessly massacred, using the same wasteful tactics he used with devastating effect on his troops in Russia. Should we have hop to and done Stalin's bidding when he snapped his fingers?

Let's not forget that WWII would NEVER have occurred had Stalin not made a pact with Hitler in 1939 allowing Hitler to invade western Poland (while Stalin invaded eastern Poland). That was Stalin's chief contribution to that war--to allow HItler a free hand to invade Poland in 1939 and then France in 1941. The old "von Schlieffen Plan" worked well in that case. How stupid of Stalin not to have known about that plan, which was well known shortly after the Franco-Prussian war. It was Stalin's stupidity about Hitler that led to Stalingrad and Leningrad and all the other wasteful battles on the Russian steppes.

Stalin typically sent Russian troops into battle very often undersupplied. He was also extremely wasteful of Russian lives, because he would send his men into battle often unarmed, and ordered his officers to machine gun them if they ran. This fact, too, is well-known to Western historians that while the Russians suffered worse than any Ally in the war, a large portion of this suffering was needlessly inflicted by Stalin and the Communists.

I haven't heard an Western historian ever denigrate the contribution of the Russian troops, how important Stalingrad was, Kursk, etc. It is well-known in the West how many lives they expended to the defeat of Hitler. But let's not denigrate the contribution of the Western Allies in opening up and fighting the fronts in North Africa, Italy, and France. As I said before, the German generals knew that Germany could never win a two front war. So without the Western Allies, Russia could not have defeated Germany alone, just as we could not have defeated Germany alone.

Not to mention the war in the Pacific, which we and the British mainly fought.

The point that I was trying to make in an earlier post was a united America was necessary to play its role during the wars of the 20th century. We were key to helping win both wars.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

The West certainly studies its own contributions to that war, just as the Russian study their own. It's not that anyone is ignoring the other; it's just natural to focus on your own people.

Of course if this were a different type of conversation I would be inclined to a thorough rebuttal. Fortunatley, your quote above is part of the real point. That each people and nation glorifies its own cannot come, even as an unintended consequence, except at the expense of truth. And that each nation and people have a different version of history that are often very biased and usually only a small part of the truth. Of course I am not talking about the professional historians, but the average person consuming propaganda in all its forms.

I would like to clarify that I was not disparaging the American war effort, I was simply stating that while Americans may have changed the course of the war and speed of Germanys defeat, they did not change the outcome which was already written on the wall in Cyrillic. Again, the Germans were already in a headlong retreat for a year on June 6, 1944, being pushed back over 2000 miles to the doorstep of Germany. And also, that the American Sherman tanks were supplied in insignificant numbers to the Russians and were useless tinderboxs against German armor.

Let me say another example. It is a self-confessed fact that the CIA knocked-off the democratically elected president of Iran and installed the Shaw in teh 70's. This of course eventually resulted in the more famous hostage taking. Now how many Americans think that their country acted wrongly? Very few, because very few Americans know the truth, they think the Iranians woke up one morning and decided and decided to take hostages.

[Hexapsalms]

OrthodxyorDeath--

I'm talking about professional historians who write books (by the thousands on WWII history), not about the average person who scarcely reads them, who instead lets the TV media educate, or rather, diseducate him. I read books on history, not listen to the common gossip about it. Of course TV won't teach Russian/Soviet history--Russians are not paying the advertisers of the networks.

I take issue that the Germans were defeated by the Russians before June 6, 1944. If that were the case, then why would the Germans have expended so many troops and tanks in launching the Battle of the Bulge? These would have been put to better use on the Eastern front, as some German generals were advocating, seeing a bigger threat from the Soviets, even sending out feelers to try to surrender to the West conditionally.

If the Western Allies weren't also fighting the Germans, the Germans would have used the troops then tied up in occupation France, North Africa, Italy, the Balkans for the Russian front to at least fight the Soviets to a draw. Better study the "von Schlieffen" plan. Hitler had followed that plan closely (contrary to the generals of WWI) and defeated France. The plan was sound. His mistake was to break the treaty with Russia and attack them far too soon before France was absorbed in and thoroughly pacified by the Reich. He wasted his resources on attacking England at the same time he was attacking Russia. In addition, if Hitler had not played the race card against the Slavs and treated the Byelorussians and Ukrainians better (who had initially welcomed the Germans as liberators), Stalin would have certainly lost.

As for the American supplies to Russia being insignificant, I would need to see if the Russians truly felt that our aid was insignificant (not Soviet propaganda that would have later discounted it). What about the period of time that Russian industry had to relocate east of the Urals in order to restart the production? That was a crucial period where American imports tided them over enough while their industry tooled up to produce those famous T-34 tanks and Kalishnikovs. Was that so insignificant? Could the issue betiming more than sheer quantities in order to be significant? And whereas the Soviet T-34 tank was superior to the German tanks and certainly better than the Sherman, the Russians still drove the Shermans into Berlin, didn't they?

As for Iran and other such foreign policy miscalculations, why not start another thread in miscellaneous?

Maybe we ought to have two more forums totally dedicated to debating history--secular and religious

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Hexapsalms,

Well you raise some very good points, and perhaps the Russians were not as well-off as I imagine. But whichever version or hybrid of versions of history a person holds to, I believe the real danger is when our leaders and the general public opinion favor one side over another based on incomplete/biased views which are so in order to favor an preconceived outcome. Of course I would not go anywhere near the ideas of people such as those who think 9/11 was a new "Reichstag fire", but I simply believe people need to be very cautious on what they choose to believe - that's all. People are trained from their youth to sing their own national anthems, and their leaders often disagree like we are now, and they know how to appear righteous in the eyes of their fellow countryman. And these people, everyone around us including ourselves, not only have a tendency to be fooled, they almost have a sort of eagerness when it fits their own views, and I think this is a very great and much overlooked cause of the world's historical calamities.

Your grandfather was right you know, and so are you. No wonder there was a war between the North and South!

[joasia]

The North and South wars were a political issue. They were controlled by the powers that be. Divide and conquer. What does this have to do with Orthodoxy? Show me an Orthodox man that was fighting on one of these sides and I will show you an Orthodox man that got lost and didn't want to ask for directions. Are we having a mini civil war here, right now?

What does this have to do with Orthodoxy?

And as for the "Russians", don't forget that you are talking about the Bolshevik(Communist) members(which 95% were jews)...NOT the Orthodox faithful that were killed or tortured and if blessed, escaped. Does anybody here KNOW about the destruction of the Orthodox faithful in Russia?

Many people have a false knowledge of the Russian situation. Lenin was a jew, Stalin was a jew, Trotsky was a jew..etc. They had no belief in upholding the Orthodox faith of the Russians...they killed the Tsar family, for crying out loud.

Little children, don't believe everything that the history books tell you...there was alot more happening.

Beware of the powers that be. They are controlling the strings of our country. I would tell you more, but I don't think you can handle it.

Joanna

[Hexapsalms]

I've never read anything about Lenin (a.k.a Vladimir Ulyanov) being Jewish. I'm not sure about Trotsky, but Stalin for sure was NOT a Jew. He even attended an Orthodox seminary in Georgia in his youth. His mother was devoutly Orthodox, his father an indifferent drunk who beat the tar out of him, making him a godless monster.

Come up with proof of the pedigree of these Bolsheviks. Besides that, being a Jew doesn't mean the person is automatically a criminal, a revolutionary and a low-life.

The Bolsheviks were 95% Jews? Is that so? I don't believe it. There were quite a number of very secularized Gentile Russians who contributed their talents to the Bolshevik Revolution, not to mention a number of ex-Old-Believers who joined them seeing real advantage to bringing down the Czar (as payback for their persecution during the raskol).

Even IF the Jews were ALL Communist revolutionaries (as if it's in their genes) what would have endeared them to the Czarist government and the Orthodox people anyway? It seems that the Russian Orthodox hated (and still hate) the Jews with a passion and wanted them exiled or dead. What kind of Christianity is that? Why would the Jews want to befriend the Orthodox?