for 17 August 2000. Updated every WEEKDAY.
|
|
Hit & Run
Yes, the Russians lost a staggering 26 million people (compared to 350,000 USA, 810,00 French and 388,000 UK), and Hitler's biggest mistake was messing with Russia, but: A) Russia would not have won the war on its own. That idea is preposterous. If Hitler didn't have vast resources tied up in other spots around the globe (notably, defending the entire west coast of Europe, his greatest general in North Africa), he would've taken Moscow and killed 100 million Soviets. The Soviets would also have been completely fucked without the vast amounts of supplies and armaments that the allies provided during the war. B) Those "costly sideshows" by "the soft underbelly" kept Germany spread waaayyyy too thin and denied Hitler consolidation of resources. See point A. C) As far as the Battle of Berlin goes, the unbelievable casualty rate was the result of the Russians haste in entering and taking the city before the west. Granted, part of it was a need for bloodthirsty revenge (I'd be pissed if a country killed 25 million of my people), but Russia's greed for land played a large stake in that tally. C'mon. I've heard of exaggeration to make a point, but the Reds would've been celebrating Oktoberfest if Hitler had limited the scope of his war to the Communists. Fortunately, he was an egomaniacal, delusional dumbass. Bill Ardolino <Bill.Ardolino@MeriStar.com> Thanks, Bill. Taking your points one at a time: Hitler's failure to take Moscow occurred in 1941, while the United Kingdom was still fighting for its life and before the United States had even entered the war. The brutal Russian winter and fearsome Soviet counterattack that the Germans endured in the winter 1941-42 are matters of well-established historical fact and widespread popular legend. Whether the Germans would have been able to take Moscow on a second try in the summer of 1942 is a matter of conjecture. Guderian (who for Suck's money was Germany's real greatest general) believed they could have, but in the event it was Hitler's decision to concentrate the summer offensive on the southern Ukraine and Caucasus. This decision had nothing to do with the Western Allies, and the offensive ended at Stalingrad, where the Germans lost in one fell swoop an army larger than the combined forces that were at that time facing US and UK forces. (That the Germans were able to fight on vigorously for three years after this loss should give some indication of the size of their commitment in Russia). We stand by our "costly sideshows" comment. It was in fact the US and the UK that were spread waayy too thin in the Mediterranean, where the Germans were able to hold off both allies with a commitment of forces that never amounted to more than 20 percent of their total military. As for the greatest general in North Africa, the reason Rommel is known as the "Desert Fox" rather than the "Desert Tiger" or "Desert Bull" is that the fox is considered a powerless animal that keeps vastly stronger enemies at bay through his wit and cunning. At its peak commitment, Germany never had more than a token force in Africa. Statistics support this claim, as do numerous anecdotes, such as the one in which Rommel, during his arrival parade in Tripoli, had his troops secretly double back at the end of their parade route and march through again, to give a false impression of his strength. That he was able to survive at all against the bulk of the British army, navy and air force is a testament to both his skill and the incompetence of the British leadership, but there is no evidence for the African war as anything but an afterthought to the main event in Europe - a main event that until the middle of 1944 was being played out exclusively between Germany and Russia. It's true that US supplies to the USSR helped the Russians immensely, but the Russian counterattack of 1941 and victory at Stalingrad a year later both occured before US supplies began reaching the Soviet Union in any appreciable numbers. On their own, the Russians turned the tide of the war months before receiving serious US assistance, and fully years before the US got involved on the European continent. On their own, they may not have won the war by 1945, but they would have won it nonetheless. You also shouldn't dismiss Soviet production, which gave the Russians the best tank of the war and an air force that eventually came to dominate even the vaunted Luftwaffe. Finally, the Russians had no need of haste in taking Berlin, since the job of conquering the German capitol had been allotted to them at the Yalta conference. There was no race with the Western Allies, at least as far as Berlin was concerned. They lost a lot of people there because the Germans fought hard until the bitter end. Thanks for convincing me that all those hours spent poring over Life Goes to War and the collected works of S.L.A. Marshall were not a total loss. yr pal, BarTel  American adults generally believe their WWII contribution was the deciding factor because that's what Americans were taught in public schools. A majority of Americans have never read historical analysis on any subject and possess a limited knowledge of WWII which was manufactured in Hollywood where film studios have been known to twist events in pursuit of a hawkable product. However, the relentless drive of the Soviets was just one factor in the Nazi defeat. And I doubt they would have had much success without some outside assistance. America's industrial output was an important factor. Much of the Red Army's supporting material was supplied by the US under a lend-lease agreement. They could not have advanced at all without the thousands of American trucks and other equipment. Of course, it's too complex to boil down to one factor but in general, it was the Hitler's miscalculated attempt to capture Moscow followed by Red Army's fanatical drive enabled by massive amounts of US material aid. Robert Fulton <robert.fulton@cwhkt.com> Yeah, Mr. Fulton, you're just talking up American industry because you invented the steam engine. We say the Russkies are A-OK! Sucksters You know I have come to find that even when I disagree with one of your articles conclusions (which isn't all that often), I have always been amazed at the accuracy of the sucksters (wholly or piecemeal) pov and facts. But today when you said the Soviets could have knocked the Nazi's boots alone, you were PAINFULLY wrong. I am not some 70 year vet with a laundry list to present you but even a cursory glance at the last three years of the war show the enormous strain placed on germany by minor things like the African and Italian campaigns, the building of the "West Wall" defenses on the coasts (as well as the million plus troops left there to defend it), and of course the minor effect of the 3 year long round the clock british/american bombing offensives which certainly took thier toll in luftwaffe aircraft and general german capability. HA! I lied. apparently I did have a laundry list. I blame clinton's example for such a blatant disregard for my earlier written promises. Otherwise, Suck on my brothers/sisters/non-gendered digital entities! John Siminoff <doomon_you@yahoo.com> Oh yeah? Then how come Colonel Hogan can always get Klink, Schultz, and Burkhalter to hop to just by threatening to have them sent to the Russian front? Sucksters Hey, thanks for the history lesson. If the general ignorance of history (even recent history) is as bad as it's supposed to be, no doubt you've convinced a few thousand readers that the whole point of U.S. involvement in the European theater was just a ploy to take part of the credit for crushing fascism away from the Worker's Paradise. "if [the USSR] had fought the Germans singlehandedly, the USSR still would have won."? You guys ever hear of lend-lease? The reason the Red Army suffered so many casualties in most of their campaigns was because even with lend-lease they were so short of equipment that they had to rely on the expendability of their troops. As far as the Battle of the Bulge goes, Hitler had pulled several of his best tank divisions away from the Eastern front for this offensive, and it still failed to break through the allied lines. Get a map and see how far the Germans were able to push the Russians back with their counteroffensives, and how often the Russian lines broke. The only thing that saved them was the fact that the Germans had too little fuel to exploit their gains across the distances involved. Mixed results? That's indefensible. I'd point out that it's also an insult to veterans, but I realize that that was probably your intent from the beginning. Also, is every angry person who prints a bumper sticker a "nincompoop"? Just wondering. Yours, Logan Rogers <logerogers@aol.com> Lend-lease was possibly America's greatest contribution to the war, and the one of which we should now be proudest (more below), but as far as the Battle of the Bulge, you need to take a look at the map of Europe. The Germans not only broke through the American lines, they mauled the defenses so badly that whole divisions (including Kurt Vonnegut's outfit, the 106th Infantry) basically ceased to exist. We can play the Battle now as an against-the-odds victory, but despite the brilliant defense of Bastogne, the fact is that the Germans took the US totally by surprise (a real disgrace, given that they had used the exact same tactic in the exact same place in 1914 and again in 1940) swept through large parts of Belgium, and kept the vastly superior US forces so off-balance that the Americans were unable to realize their plan of crossing the Rhine into Germany until the following March - three or four months after they had initially planned. The attack was a failure only in the sense that its original goal of capturing Antwerp and repeating the success of 1940 was impossible from the start. As for the insult to our veterans, well, it always comes back to that, doesn't it? Anybody who fought the Germans at all deserves our respect, but honoring veterans doesn't mean we have to believe things that are not true. And there's a more important point here, one that has to do with the perversion of American ideals that people like Tom Brokaw and Stephen Ambrose play into when they lay these absurd plaudits on the fighting men of that Great Generation (as if Generation X or Y or W wouldn't have done the same thing in the same circumstances). The fact that America has never been particularly good at turning out homicidal martinets is something we should be proud of, not something we should cover up with fake tales of martial prowess. Lend-lease, and the powerful economy, industrial efficiency, hard work and initiative that made it possible, are what Americans should invoke when we want to claim World War II bragging rights. Most of what Brokaw in particular lauds as great virtue involves the ability to shoot and kill on command. By his measure, in fact, the most virtuous people of the war should be the Germans, since, like it or not, they were by a long shot the best fighters. This idea that the country is great in proportion to its ability to invade other countries is fairly recent in American history, and it's a little dismaying to see that belief growing, rather than fading, with time. We'll leave the details to the historians, but a country worth living for beats a country worth dying for any day. Sucksters Since when is the Washington Times a "normally respectable old rag"??? Kristin <kconradi@macromedia.com> The best line about the Washington Times came from Lynn Samuels of WABC radio: "It's like a Hebrew paper; you have to read it backwards it's so distorted." Sucksters In your 8/10 feature on radio, you stated that the ENIAC was the first vacuum-tube computer. In fact, the Colossus, a vacuum-tube machine build by Alan Turing and his gang to break German codes, predates ENIAC by a few years. Of course, they were all destroyed after the war, leaving most folks to ignore their existence. Kinda the same way everybody forgets that WWII was largely a Soviet-German war. Fletcher Moore <fletch@1099.com> What's even less widely known is that prior to vacuum tubes, computers were powered by a miniature dinosaur who lived inside the works and would scribble zeros and ones on a slate and then say things like "One calculation down, three hundred billion to go... I hate this job!" Sucksters Hi, as an (goddamn) Finn (you know, from the country of the Jukka bros., Finland), I find the US presidential election both absolutely hilarious and absolutely terrifying at the same time. Not getting into that, I would just like to see you do something original as a representative of sorts of US media: bash the Democrats also. I understand that you have to choose sides, but I find it very refreshing when you say you support someone and then strike at their stupidities and weaknesses. It gives you more credibility. By bashing the republicans you just seem so like everybody else on the liberal side of the media. Well, that's it, and thanks for reading.. MJ <w357@hotmail.com> Not to worry, MJ. Suck is notably short on members of the Democratic party, and as far as the editor is concerned, this election proves three things: * That there has never been a better time to vote for a third party. * That California should secede from the United States * That the office of the Presidency should be abolished. As we see little chance of realizing any of those goals, we will not be giving aid or comfort to the Democrats. Sucksters Filler: Generation Ex Polly, Many thanks for questioning the questions discontenting the queasily quiescent. Sure did raise the hackles on my dysfunctional ticks. Not that it does any lasting good, but the exercise affords a certain distance between me and the aforementioned ticks, err - questions. It's a distance, and I mean this as sincere praise, not unlike that found in the joyful consumption of alcohol/drugs, or even occasionally in the indulgence in excessive sports fandom. Maybe it's something to do with vacating your identity for a time — and who doesn't need a vacation? In belated, but related note to your Fillerversary survey, what do I find myself doing after nigh these many years of Filler? Living a life of quiet respiration, it seems. Chasing after what I wanted sure hasn't delivered the goods, so now I'm trying too be very still and quiet. With any luck, that rabbit will hop close enough for me to club it. Of course, this is the rabbit of all my hopes and aspirations. I have this image of a 15th century painting, "St. Anthony Abbot Tempted by a Heap of Gold," where Anthony is standing on a road, with a fine house and a ship and foreign lands visible around him, symbols of earthly temptation, or so I'm told. There's also this little rabbit there with him, just off the road, which I figure might as well stand for Anthony's personal hopes. Anthony's standing there, looking at the rabbit, but unmoved by its temptations. Still, I sense him thinking, "... if only I wasn't wearing this clumsy robe, maybe I could lunge out and throttle the bastard." To be honest, I don't think this strategy is working any better for me than the chasing did. Which brings me back to the simple charms of ironic detachment, and beer — cool, soothing beer. R'gds, Zack Haberer Zack, Do you know that when a girl wants to know if she's going to marry the guy she's seeing, she twists the stem on an apple and says the letters of the alphabet, pausing on the letter of her favorite guy ("A, B, Ceeeeeee") so that the stem will break on that letter and she'll know they're destined to be married? How many stems do you suppose make it all the way to Z? That bunny rabbit isn't even in the neighborhood, buddy. But I know how you feel — I, too, was swinging that heavy club around, trying to bludgeon me a rabbit but mostly just fucking shit up. Recently I, too, have resigned myself to staying very quiet and still until the bunny rabbit crawls right up into my lap and sings the Macarena. Actually, I probably won't even take notice until it sings "Flesh and Blood" by the Sundays. Ah, but the beer. The cool soothing beer. Quiet and still, Polly Polly- About 2 or so years ago you predicted that upon my graduation from Bucknell, I would spend several years living in Vail, skiing, vomiting, and listening to phish. It looks like you were right on at least some counts. I recently accepted a job in Colorado, and while it's not really anywhere near Vail, there are skiing areas near by, and I'm sure that I'll be listening to some phish while I'm there. If I end up moving to Vail or start vomiting a great deal, I'll be sure to let you know. If i'm ever in San Francisco, I owe you a coke. Mike Stevenson <mike@godisdead.com> Oh, mark my words. You'll be vomiting. Thanks for the update. My next prediction is that you'll have fun in Denver, but eventually you'll get pretty bored, hanging out with your friends in the same old ways day in an day out. Then one day you'll meet a really great girl, and you two will be MADLY in love, and then she'll start getting all bitchy and demanding and she'll say that you need to grow up and make more of a commitment and you'll say "To hell with this! I don't need this!" but later you'll regret it and kind of wonder whether she was The One and you just blew it because you were a baby who didn't really "get" the concept of PMS. But then you'll think, "Nah, she was lame," and you'll hang out with your friends again, and everything will be cool, but sort of boring after a while, and then you'll meet this really great girl... Let me know how all that turns out. And thanks again for keeping me abreast of your movements. Polly Dear Polly, It was so nice to see you again! We had such a nice vacation, that big bridge, that district with all the hippie shops. Oh, and that chinese food, that was very good. They don't have that in Cleveland, do they? I never would've guessed it, but my little sister's a famous writer now! Dad's so proud of you. And thanks for showing us where you work. Those people you work with seem nice. That internet stuff, that's the wave of the future! Heh heh. But the traffic, everyone drives so fast, don't they? You really gotta watch yer step. And the rent. I just can't believe it. You three girls all living in that tiny victorian and ya could buy a house for that back in Cleveland, I'm tellin' ya. But hey, it's yer life. I'm not telling you what ta do. Still, yer so thin. Ya gotta eat girl. A strong wind could blow you away. The problem is they don't have real food here. It's all just vegetables. How ya gonna keep your strength up? Here, before I forget, mom made these cookies to give ya. So, when ya moving home? Ha Ha. Just kidding. No, really. It's a lot better now. The Browns got a new stadium and everything. Look, we gotta go to the airport now. I wanna see you this christmas, okay? Your big brother, Michael Chicchelly <mikeamy@stratos.net> Dear Mike, I'm in therapy now and I blame you for everything. You could have been nicer. You could've thought about how to cater to my needs at age 6. I mean, you were 8! It was your responsibility, as the elder sibling, to think of me. But no. You just did exactly what you wanted to do, like a child. And for that, I will always loathe and despise you. I won't be home for Christmas, you bastard. With layers of resentment too deep to fathom, Polly Aside from spewing useless factoids, manufacturing recreational pharmaceuticals with the intent to distribute, and reading on-line magazines, we don't do much else here at MIT, aside from have flamboyant and vigorous sex in rooms lit by the ethereal glow of beakers full of radium. You should drop by and check it out sometime. Ciao Ben Schwabe <bschwabe@MIT.edu> Flamboyant sex! Radium! Where do I sign up? Does the radium kill the STDs? Is that the plan, or just a beneficial side effect? Useless, factless, and manufactured, Polly Okay, now You're cyber-humping My EX. I'll have you know that Ben (of MIT) and I had 13 beautiful, monogamous months together at Bard College. Well, not in a ROW, or anything... And, sure, Polly, you and I aren't "friends," per se. I mean, sometimes I write, sometimes you publish... eh So I think this pretty much green lights you to hop right on my former Little Punkinhead. In fact, Ben's sexual kung fu is pretty mighty. Really. I suggest you book out to Boston ASAP before he blows his janitor closet/drug lab all to smoky pieces. Just please, at least describe the sex graphically in your column and tell me if he's stopped making the Grinch Who Stole Christmas face. Go on, you crazy kids, you... Anna (formerly of Duke Law, with the Prairie Dog) Cyber-humping? Lord help me. Three lines of email equals virtual sex? Wow. It wasn't that good for me. Do I at least get to smoke a cigarette now? At any rate, good work. Your Grinch Who Stole Christmas image was all that was required to ensure that nothing would/could ever happen with me and your little punkinhead. I admire your efficiency and clock-like precision. If only I were armed thusly against my transgressors, instead of being woefully equipped with ineffectual whining after the fact via pointless, bitter cartoons. Next time, I'll try your method: "Right on! You two actually seem perfect for each other! Try not to let that middle-of-the-night farting in the bed get you down. You'll get used to it, in time. I never did, but I'm a notoriously light sleeper, so..." "Go for it, lady! Let me tell you, he's incredibly sensitive. In fact, you might consider making him wear condoms well beyond the point of risk - that is, if you prefer to have sex for more than two or three minutes at a time." compliments, and he loves giving them out - to every woman he knows. He's very expressive about how sexy his women friends look. But you're not as threatened as me, so I'm sure that won't bother you at all." But none of these has the raw power of The Grinch Face. As that guy on the Sopranos once said, "I'm in AWRRR of you." Princess Anna, you truly do belong here with us, among the Sneaky Beaky Club members. Polly |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||
 |  |
|||||||||||||||
 |   | |||||||||||||||
![[Tim Cavanaugh]](/fish/staff/images/tim.gif)
![[Phillip Bailey]](/fish/staff/images/phil.gif){kind=small}
