Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:58 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Julia Minor wrote:
A joke thread I once read started out with the comment that had Monty written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The War". The first response was that if Patton had written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The Damn War Despite Monty". The next post was that Eisenhower should have titled his memoir "Why I Am Bald".


And Zukov then would probably titled his memoir as "The unfortunate phenomenon of excessive self-esteem".
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by n7axw   » Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:54 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5593
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Dilandu wrote:
Julia Minor wrote:
A joke thread I once read started out with the comment that had Monty written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The War". The first response was that if Patton had written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The Damn War Despite Monty". The next post was that Eisenhower should have titled his memoir "Why I Am Bald".


And Zukov then would probably titled his memoir as "The unfortunate phenomenon of excessive self-esteem".


Churchill's title would have been "Why I didnt shoot Stalin the first time he reached out for a separate peace with Hitler." Roosevelt's would have been "How I managed to cage that damm limey" Stalins would have been "Lessons on Playing Both Ends against the Middle".

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:49 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Julia Minor wrote:
A joke thread I once read started out with the comment that had Monty written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The War".
The first response was that if Patton had written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The Damn War Despite Monty".
The next post was that Eisenhower should have titled his memoir "Why I Am Bald".


ROFLMAO! :lol:
Top
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by Dilandu   » Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:03 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

n7axw wrote:
Churchill's title would have been "Why I didnt shoot Stalin the first time he reached out for a separate peace with Hitler."

-


Er... Stalin never reached out for a separate peace with Hitler.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by n7axw   » Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:46 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5593
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Dilandu wrote:
n7axw wrote:
Churchill's title would have been "Why I didnt shoot Stalin the first time he reached out for a separate peace with Hitler."

-


Er... Stalin never reached out for a separate peace with Hitler.


I thought I might bite you with that one... :twisted:

Apparently there were possibly two attempts. One is a bit more iffy and while there rumors, the Intel wasn't solid. The other one, a bit more solid, was a meeting in Sweden and confirmed by the Swedes. At any rate, they failed to arrive at terms. Stalin wanted the borders to go back to the 1941 borders with Poland as a buffer between Germany and Russia. Hitler's war aim and a major reason for invading was to acquire Ukraine's breadbasket and the Caucus with the oil fields which Stalin was unable to agree to. The whole idea was dropped after the Normandy landing after which Germany's unconditional surrender became official policy for all the allies, including Russia.

If you have access to U Tube try clicking on TIK's channel. He is a Brit and a very thorough researcher and critically minded historian. He has done a special video on this subject.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by Dilandu   » Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:26 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

n7axw wrote:
Apparently there were possibly two attempts. One is a bit more iffy and while there rumors, the Intel wasn't solid. The other one, a bit more solid, was a meeting in Sweden and confirmed by the Swedes.
-


As far as I knew, the only source is the memoirs of Peter Kleist, and aside of some documents in Russian and American archives that maybe have some dubious meaning, there is no outside confirmation. While it is possible that some attempts to initiate peace talks may be commenced in 1941, in 1943 it would have exactly zero sense to even try it for USSR. It is possible that Germany MAY try to initiate some kind of peace talks on low levels (German diplomatic service was, let's just say, not very supportive of Hitler course...), they obviously weren't supported by USSR.

So frankly, it sound just like another British attempt to scream "vile Russians, after we, noble British, betrayed France, Spain and Czech and make all possible amendments with Nazi to help them destroy USSR, how dare you sign Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?!" Britain is... a bit hysterical about the role it played (or shall we say - blundered?) in helping Hitler became a threat, so London was always first in any finger-pointing...
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by n7axw   » Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:41 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5593
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Dilandu wrote:
n7axw wrote:
Apparently there were possibly two attempts. One is a bit more iffy and while there rumors, the Intel wasn't solid. The other one, a bit more solid, was a meeting in Sweden and confirmed by the Swedes.
-


As far as I knew, the only source is the memoirs of Peter Kleist, and aside of some documents in Russian and American archives that maybe have some dubious meaning, there is no outside confirmation. While it is possible that some attempts to initiate peace talks may be commenced in 1941, in 1943 it would have exactly zero sense to even try it for USSR. It is possible that Germany MAY try to initiate some kind of peace talks on low levels (German diplomatic service was, let's just say, not very supportive of Hitler course...), they obviously weren't supported by USSR.

So frankly, it sound just like another British attempt to scream "vile Russians, after we, noble British, betrayed France, Spain and Czech and make all possible amendments with Nazi to help them destroy USSR, how dare you sign Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?!" Britain is... a bit hysterical about the role it played (or shall we say - blundered?) in helping Hitler became a threat, so London was always first in any finger-pointing...


No, that is not TIK finger pointing. He is pretty darned insistent on getting it right. His politics are a bit right wing, but he is admirably professional with his history and is willing to gore any ox that gets in the way.

That's how we should all be, I think. To hell with party lines and white washing..

You might like him. He has done a quite a bit on the Eastern Front.

I'll go back and re-listen to the video and pay attention to his source material.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by n7axw   » Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:56 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5593
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

I don't have a compete reference, but this might help locate it: Vojtech, "Stalin and the Propect of a Separate Peace in World War II."

TIK's presentation is heavy on conjecture and short on source material. But it does seem persuasive. You'll have to watch it yourself and see what you think.


Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:02 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Dilandu wrote:
And Zukov then would probably titled his memoir as "The unfortunate phenomenon of excessive self-esteem".


or better yet if we lived in an Alt History timeline...

"Zhukov, my part in eliminating the party leaders in the Revolution of 1933 and saved the Rodina!"
and
his second memoir:
"How we fed Beria to pigs and set the Lubyanka on fire!"

:lol:
Top

Return to Safehold