03/16/10 [AS 92] - It's always those adventurers trying to get ahead in life

[psilorder]

Why are so many insisting Mink is female, coming up with elaborate justifications for him lacking certain 'curves'? (Matilda if anything has even more of an excuse to not have 'Non-Mammal Mammaries', and yet.. she does.)  Is the concept of an effeminate male really that difficult to parse?

Myself i just find myself wondering since no gender has been given as far as i know, but i am in the "Mink is a guy"-camp. no, an effeminate guy isnt hard to imagine (especially after the guy on Tokio Hotel), but on the other hand, how hard is it to imagine a masculine girl?

My youngest brother had a roommate that came across as a little effeminate. He now has a wife and kids.
Masculine girl? You mean like Kristen Johnston's "Sally" in 3rd Rock From The Sun?

well, i was going more for "girl who looks like a guy"

, anyone else who almost can't help but add another letter to his name and chuckle?

Smink? Minkl? Minka? Mink'd? ...I don't see it.
[/quote]

And yes, what i meant was one of the ones you got, Minka. look it up on wikipedia to get it.
also, thanks for giving me another.
"smink" in swedish = make-up

[Suwako]

And yes, what i meant was one of the ones you got, Minka. look it up on wikipedia to get it.
also, thanks for giving me another.
"smink" in swedish = make-up

Yay, Minka.

Also; Smink is make-up in dutch as well.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

In any event, heroism is a lot like faith. It's intensely personal. Two people can look at the actions of a third person and see completely different things. Personally, I've never seen or even heard of someone I'd consider a legitimate hero.

Oh?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/features/2379033/ ?

[Sunblink]

In any event, heroism is a lot like faith. It's intensely personal. Two people can look at the actions of a third person and see completely different things. Personally, I've never seen or even heard of someone I'd consider a legitimate hero.

Oh?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/features/2379033/ ?

Not only that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Matz#United_Flight_232

I know it's Wiki, but what can ya do.

And for historical examples, although I fear I am violating Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Lazowski

[AGE00]

In any event, heroism is a lot like faith. It's intensely personal. Two people can look at the actions of a third person and see completely different things. Personally, I've never seen or even heard of someone I'd consider a legitimate hero.

Oh?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/features/2379033/ ?

Not only that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Matz#United_Flight_232

I know it's Wiki, but what can ya do.

And for historical examples, although I fear I am violating Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Lazowski

Sorry, guys, but none of that really does it for me. I mean, all those people deserve a slap on the back, it was damned decent of them and all, but... It all lacks a certain grandiosity, I suppose.

[Sunblink]

Sorry, guys, but none of that really does it for me. I mean, all those people deserve a slap on the back, it was damned decent of them and all, but... It all lacks a certain grandiosity, I suppose.

Well, curses. Back to Wikipedia I go! *flies*

[Les]

Why are so many insisting Mink is female, coming up with elaborate justifications for him lacking certain 'curves'? (Matilda if anything has even more of an excuse to not have 'Non-Mammal Mammaries', and yet.. she does.)  Is the concept of an effeminate male really that difficult to parse?

They want to crush on a girl instead of being Gay For Mink (because they're already Gay For Abel) or something is my guess.

Myself i just find myself wondering since no gender has been given as far as i know, but i am in the "Mink is a guy"-camp. no, an effeminate guy isnt hard to imagine (especially after the guy on Tokio Hotel), but on the other hand, how hard is it to imagine a masculine girl?

Not hard at all, but even Taun has something resembling boobies.   

[AGE00]

Sorry, guys, but none of that really does it for me. I mean, all those people deserve a slap on the back, it was damned decent of them and all, but... It all lacks a certain grandiosity, I suppose.

Well, curses. Back to Wikipedia I go! *flies*

It wasn't supposed to be a challenge, but I appreciate the enthusiasm you're displaying on my behalf. ^^

[VAE]

Sorry, guys, but none of that really does it for me. I mean, all those people deserve a slap on the back, it was damned decent of them and all, but... It all lacks a certain grandiosity, I suppose.

Hmm, if what Lazowski did is not grandiose enough for you then i have problems imagining what would be.
I mean, he in a most clever and well thought way saved several thousand people from the fascists!

But maybe it differs in the conception of what is a hero - for me a hero is most usually a common person who, when it is needed and an opportunity arises does something which although might be risky achieves a great goal

It is true, however to my defense there are two things ...

Just for future reference, as a rule you're not really supposed to do two consecutive posts like that.  If you're replying to two different people, the idea is to have both replies in the same post.  You can use the 'insert quote' link to make this easier  

Sorry, you see - in the other places where i post there is no such thing as this facility. I will know better next time!

Edit: Hmm, the only thing i could come up is Minsk, and then i was left wondering why the hell should belarussian capital be a funny word

[AmigaDragon]

Smink? Minkl? Minka? Mink'd? ...I don't see it.

And yes, what i meant was one of the ones you got, Minka. look it up on wikipedia to get it.
also, thanks for giving me another.
"smink" in swedish = make-up

And "house" is funny because...?

[joshofspam]

This is the start of where Abel actively distances himself from Mink, putting extra effort into getting Mink to 'go away' and sever all ties.... so that Abel won't be hurt when Mink goes out into the world and inevitably (in Abel's view) gets himself killed.

I was wondering if Mink distances himself from Abel when he finds out that his Dad was the one who screwed up the Zinvth hospital plan.
However, he's had ample time to notice the clan mark and figure it out himself, and if he's able to forgive his mother's murderer, he probably isn't the sort to hold a grudge against Aniz' son.

Could it be more like Abel becomes close friends with Mink after this and then something happens to Mink that makes Abel give up friends all together?

Abel seemes more tolerant to Mink than he is with most people. But that is a difference of a few hundred years when you compare then and now.

[jeffh4]

Sorry, guys, but none of that really does it for me. I mean, all those people deserve a slap on the back, it was damned decent of them and all, but... It all lacks a certain grandiosity, I suppose.

Could you be more specific about what sort of 'grandiosity' you are looking for?  The examples above saved thousands of lives, so the scope of their accomplishments are certainly grand.  

Are you looking for a certain "larger-than-life" personality?  Someone who has garnered a cult following/legendary status?  For reference, here's the Webster's definition for hero:

A person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

As far as heroic war stories, here are some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/wwII-a-f.html

[Sunblink]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman

...No dice?

God I love Batman.

[AGE00]

Hmm, if what Lazowski did is not grandiose enough for you then i have problems imagining what would be.
I mean, he in a most clever and well thought way saved several thousand people from the fascists!

But maybe it differs in the conception of what is a hero - for me a hero is most usually a common person who, when it is needed and an opportunity arises does something which although might be risky achieves a great goal

Could you be more specific about what sort of 'grandiosity' you are looking for?  The examples above saved thousands of lives, so the scope of their accomplishments are certainly grand. 

Are you looking for a certain "larger-than-life" personality?  Someone who has garnered a cult following/legendary status?  For reference, here's the Webster's definition for hero:

A person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

As far as heroic war stories, here are some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/wwII-a-f.html

I wish I could tell you guys what it would take, but I don't know because I've never really seen it. I just feel that a hero should inspire you, or speak to you on some level. The closest out of the examples provided so far would probably be Alvin York, and that may just be because his Wikipedia entry contains some of his own words. It gives me more of a sense of the man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman

...No dice?

God I love Batman.

Now, there are a lot of elements to Batman that I dig, but his self-righteous attitude can all too often get right up my nose. Weirdly, his tendency to create itemised lists detailing how to murder all his friends doesn't bother me in the least...

[VAE]

Sorry, guys, but none of that really does it for me. I mean, all those people deserve a slap on the back, it was damned decent of them and all, but... It all lacks a certain grandiosity, I suppose.

Could you be more specific about what sort of 'grandiosity' you are looking for?  The examples above saved thousands of lives, so the scope of their accomplishments are certainly grand.  

Are you looking for a certain "larger-than-life" personality?  Someone who has garnered a cult following/legendary status?  For reference, here's the Webster's definition for hero:

A person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

As far as heroic war stories, here are some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/wwII-a-f.html

To add some our ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maresiev  - a soviet pilot ace who flew (and shot down germans) with both leg prosthetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozhedub - a soviet pilot which shot down a load of german planes , including the nearly unbeatable Me-262

As heroes of labour go, Sergej Pavlovic Korolyov was one certainly - he was the man responsible for pretty much all of Soviet space program's sucesses in 50's and 60's

[Amber Williams]

For me, when it comes to being heroic, it often isn't so much reliant on a grand scheme or how much they change the world, so much that doing something regardless of whether or not the world is going to recognize or even know it happened.  Because it was the good thing to do.

An example off the top of my head is Arland Williams

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_Williams if you wanna wiki) who during the time the plane was crashed in the icy river and was given multiple chances to tie himself to safety, he instead gave up his chance each time to ensure the other people got out before him.  In the end just as the last person before him got put to safety, the plane sunk and he was killed.  He could have lived, no one would have blamed him for taking a turn for the rope, but instead he chose knowing full well what could happen to give a complete stranger he never met that chance.

To me he is very much a hero because I can only hope that should the situation ever happen to me, that I could be as marginally as brave and altruistic.  And to me a hero isn't so much someone who saves the world but reminds you that there are good things in the world worth saving.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Sorry, guys, but none of that really does it for me. I mean, all those people deserve a slap on the back, it was damned decent of them and all, but... It all lacks a certain grandiosity, I suppose.

Odd. I thought staying under a burning tanker truck and trailer full of petrol, a pillar of flame 5 stories high that the local airport had to divert planes around, just for your $12.50/hr ? And just so the little 12yo girl under it doesn't have to die alone? Not only that, at one point the other firefighters couldn't stay close enough, due to the heat, and basically had to leave him there under a fire blanket and back off.

That, to me, is pretty damn heroic. Maybe it's just me.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maresiev  - a soviet pilot ace who flew (and shot down germans) with both leg prosthetics

Sounds a lot like Douglas Bader, an english gentleman of much the same cloth. Both legs removed in a plane crash, one above and one below the knee, and continued to fly fighter combat ops because he could, did, and was very successful at it.

Also was involved in much of the development of the British Air Force tactics, which were their staple structure for the next 30 years or more.

[AGE00]

Odd. I thought staying under a burning tanker truck and trailer full of petrol, a pillar of flame 5 stories high that the local airport had to divert planes around, just for your $12.50/hr ? And just so the little 12yo girl under it doesn't have to die alone? Not only that, at one point the other firefighters couldn't stay close enough, due to the heat, and basically had to leave him there under a fire blanket and back off.

That, to me, is pretty damn heroic. Maybe it's just me.

See, this one I particularly don't get. The article says "while colleagues fought to save both their lives, Mr Kennedy comforted the badly hurt girl", which sounds to me like he got in the way while they did the actual work. Apparently, many of his colleagues feel the same way...

Edit: This isn't getting too off-topic, is it?

[VAE]

For me, when it comes to being heroic, it often isn't so much reliant on a grand scheme or how much they change the world, so much that doing something regardless of whether or not the world is going to recognize or even know it happened.  Because it was the good thing to do.

An example off the top of my head is Arland Williams

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_Williams if you wanna wiki) who during the time the plane was crashed in the icy river and was given multiple chances to tie himself to safety, he instead gave up his chance each time to ensure the other people got out before him.  In the end just as the last person before him got put to safety, the plane sunk and he was killed.  He could have lived, no one would have blamed him for taking a turn for the rope, but instead he chose knowing full well what could happen to give a complete stranger he never met that chance.

To me he is very much a hero because I can only hope that should the situation ever happen to me, that I could be as marginally as brave and altruistic.  And to me a hero isn't so much someone who saves the world but reminds you that there are good things in the world worth saving.

Altruistic very much, but i am not so sure if heroic is the right word - The others were doing the rescuing , so pretty much only thing he achieved is that he died instead of someone else,,,
An example of small scale heroism from the same accident would be mr. Skutnik who saved a drowning woman by jumping into the ice-cold water himself and dragging her out, thus saving one more life.

But who cares anyway.. It is important everyone has some heroes at least.

[Tangent]

I really think you should drop Stalingrad as an example. That battle was pretty much decided by who could afford to sustain their stupidity for the longest. It was the Special Olympics of World War 2.

Okay. First, that's rather insulting. The people who participate in the Special Olympics didn't ask to be the way they are. Many were born that way. Others lost limbs in accidents or due to infection or the like. The point of the Special Olympics is that these people are persevering and working hard to overcome the problems they suffer from. And literally, there are no losers, either in the Special Olympics or in the regular Olympics. Just to have a chance to participate... that in and of itself is a great victory and shows skill and ability. Who gives a feth if you don't win the Gold or whatever? You still did your best. That's what matters.

Second, Hitler's war against Russia would have succeeded except for two things. One, the Soviets managed to convince Britain and the U.S. to open a war on a second front, which forced Hitler to split his attention. If the U.S. had waited one year further to invade? Hitler may have defeated the Soviets... and we would have had a much more difficult time in France and Italy as a result. Two, one of the worse winters in written European history hit, to the point that oil froze in engines. If the winter had been milder, the Nazis would have been able to send additional supplies and vehicles into the Soviet Union and may very well have taken Stalingrad and Moscow. The fact is, we (the Allies) got lucky. While we would have eventually prevailed in any event (as the U.S. was untouched by the war and able to build a lot of tanks and ships that Germany and Japan couldn't effectively touch), it would have been a far bloodier war if the Soviets had fallen... all because of a winter far colder than normal.

[AGE00]

I really think you should drop Stalingrad as an example. That battle was pretty much decided by who could afford to sustain their stupidity for the longest. It was the Special Olympics of World War 2.

Okay. First, that's rather insulting. The people who participate in the Special Olympics didn't ask to be the way they are. Many were born that way. Others lost limbs in accidents or due to infection or the like. The point of the Special Olympics is that these people are persevering and working hard to overcome the problems they suffer from. And literally, there are no losers, either in the Special Olympics or in the regular Olympics. Just to have a chance to participate... that in and of itself is a great victory and shows skill and ability. Who gives a feth if you don't win the Gold or whatever? You still did your best. That's what matters.

Second, Hitler's war against Russia would have succeeded except for two things. One, the Soviets managed to convince Britain and the U.S. to open a war on a second front, which forced Hitler to split his attention. If the U.S. had waited one year further to invade? Hitler may have defeated the Soviets... and we would have had a much more difficult time in France and Italy as a result. Two, one of the worse winters in written European history hit, to the point that oil froze in engines. If the winter had been milder, the Nazis would have been able to send additional supplies and vehicles into the Soviet Union and may very well have taken Stalingrad and Moscow. The fact is, we (the Allies) got lucky. While we would have eventually prevailed in any event (as the U.S. was untouched by the war and able to build a lot of tanks and ships that Germany and Japan couldn't effectively touch), it would have been a far bloodier war if the Soviets had fallen... all because of a winter far colder than normal.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I doubt I could argue the point without offending your sensibilities even further. All I will say is that pretty much everyone thought Hitler making a move on Russia when he already had his hands full elsewhere was stupid, and that the Russian tactic of "five guys to a rifle, one of you pick it up when the guy who has it now gets shot" pretty obviously lacked... finesse.

[VAE]

Second, Hitler's war against Russia would have succeeded except for two things. One, the Soviets managed to convince Britain and the U.S. to open a war on a second front, which forced Hitler to split his attention. If the U.S. had waited one year further to invade? Hitler may have defeated the Soviets... and we would have had a much more difficult time in France and Italy as a result. Two, one of the worse winters in written European history hit, to the point that oil froze in engines. If the winter had been milder, the Nazis would have been able to send additional supplies and vehicles into the Soviet Union and may very well have taken Stalingrad and Moscow. The fact is, we (the Allies) got lucky. While we would have eventually prevailed in any event (as the U.S. was untouched by the war and able to build a lot of tanks and ships that Germany and Japan couldn't effectively touch), it would have been a far bloodier war if the Soviets had fallen... all because of a winter far colder than normal.

Sorry , i am not really glad to discuss the great war here, but you got it ass-up.
At the time the fabled second front was opened, delayed as much as it was, hitler was already broken.
The war might have lasted a year longer, and be far more bloody than what it was, but at this point it would take a very incompetent leadership (and those were weeded out in the first years of the war) to NOT win for the soviets.
Besides the motives  of the west in the second front being opened were everything but altruistic... (hint hint If stalin won by himself, most of europe would be socialist => Uncle Sam  disapproves)

[psilorder]

Smink? Minkl? Minka? Mink'd? ...I don't see it.

And yes, what i meant was one of the ones you got, Minka. look it up on wikipedia to get it.
also, thanks for giving me another.
"smink" in swedish = make-up

And "house" is funny because...?

ok, missed that one since i (obviously) know what i'm talking about. check the disambiguation page. second entry.

They want to crush on a girl instead of being Gay For Mink (because they're already Gay For Abel) or something is my guess.

Myself i just find myself wondering since no gender has been given as far as i know, but i am in the "Mink is a guy"-camp. no, an effeminate guy isnt hard to imagine (especially after the guy on Tokio Hotel), but on the other hand, how hard is it to imagine a masculine girl?

Not hard at all, but even Taun has something resembling boobies.   

Yeah, i know.

[Tangent]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I doubt I could argue the point without offending your sensibilities even further. All I will say is that pretty much everyone thought Hitler making a move on Russia when he already had his hands full elsewhere was stupid, and that the Russian tactic of "five guys to a rifle, one of you pick it up when the guy who has it now gets shot" pretty obviously lacked... finesse.

People may have thought it stupid, but Nazi Germany had spent the previous year laying the groundwork for the purges in Stalin's military machine. These purges were why the Soviet war against Finland (which was a nominal ally of the Germans, in so far that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way) was less than successful, and which revealed that by convincing Stalin that the officers in his military were plotting against him and needed to be eliminated, Stalin had fallen for the bait, killed almost everyone who could keep the Soviet army together, and that the time was ripe to attack. Don't forget, the Germans managed to get quite close to Moscow before things fell apart, which is a lot bit better than Napoleon did.

If the weather had been kinder, if the Germans hadn't started killing every Soviet they could get their hands on, instead of entering as "liberators" who were going to stop the purges and systemic murders, or if Hitler had listened to his generals and continued the offensive against Moscow earlier instead of securing the Ukraine, then the Soviets would have fallen. I've studied World War II, both in college (history minor) and on my own. Both sides suffered through inept leadership (both Hitler and Stalin, though Stalin did learn from his very costly mistakes).

But that's going on a massive tangent here.

BTW, you do realize that Mink's mother did have an ulterior motive here. She and her kind were strengthened by joy and happiness. By creating hospitals and curing the sick, she was enhancing her own power. Thus she was not creating hospitals out of a sense of charity... but instead out of a desire to feed and create a harvest of joy from which she could live off of. The "benefit" of the beings she was healing was secondary to her own desires. Thus the adventurer was quite justified in killing her.

[Thirty Second Artbomb]

I'm just gonna butt in here to say two things: One, that Mink is even more awesome and maybe even a little heroic, what with the forgiveness and tolerance and such in the face of massive head-explodifying racism (speciesism?) against cubi.

Two, does anyone remember Godwin's Law? ;)

[AGE00]

BTW, you do realize that Mink's mother did have an ulterior motive here. She and her kind were strengthened by joy and happiness. By creating hospitals and curing the sick, she was enhancing her own power. Thus she was not creating hospitals out of a sense of charity... but instead out of a desire to feed and create a harvest of joy from which she could live off of. The "benefit" of the beings she was healing was secondary to her own desires. Thus the adventurer was quite justified in killing her.

I would hardly say that being selfish constitutes justifiable grounds for gacking someone. If that were the case, anyone who ever ran anything with the intention of making a profit would be fair game.

[VAE]

People may have thought it stupid, but Nazi Germany had spent the previous year laying the groundwork for the purges in Stalin's military machine. These purges were why the Soviet war against Finland (which was a nominal ally of the Germans, in so far that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way) was less than successful, and which revealed that by convincing Stalin that the officers in his military were plotting against him and needed to be eliminated, Stalin had fallen for the bait, killed almost everyone who could keep the Soviet army together, and that the time was ripe to attack. Don't forget, the Germans managed to get quite close to Moscow before things fell apart, which is a lot bit better than Napoleon did.

Sorry, Mr. i am the evidence policeman, show your documents!
Edit: this makes it better:

If the weather had been kinder, if the Germans hadn't started killing every Soviet they could get their hands on, instead of entering as "liberators" who were going to stop the purges and systemic murders, or if Hitler had listened to his generals and continued the offensive against Moscow earlier instead of securing the Ukraine, then the Soviets would have fallen. I've studied World War II, both in college (history minor) and on my own. Both sides suffered through inept leadership (both Hitler and Stalin, though Stalin did learn from his very costly mistakes).

But that's going on a massive tangent here.

So you basically say if the weather was favourable, and if germany did not make most of its blunders while soviets would, Hitler would have won?
Aah aah, i'm melting! The flash of the obvious got me full on!

BTW, you do realize that Mink's mother did have an ulterior motive here. She and her kind were strengthened by joy and happiness. By creating hospitals and curing the sick, she was enhancing her own power. Thus she was not creating hospitals out of a sense of charity... but instead out of a desire to feed and create a harvest of joy from which she could live off of. The "benefit" of the beings she was healing was secondary to her own desires. Thus the adventurer was quite justified in killing her.

*Head asplodes*
*gets new artificial head* Aah, much better!
There is no such thing as a sense of charity as you state it here. Everyone even charitable does it, because he enjoys the happiness he creates in others - the only difference with Mink's mom was that she literally lived from it.
I do not know about you, but i would gladly cooperate with someone who enhances his power by curing me, especially since the alternative tends to be dying and/or being in pain.
Except for rare cases, motivation behind deed does not matter, what happens is important

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

I really think you should drop Stalingrad as an example. That battle was pretty much decided by who could afford to sustain their stupidity for the longest. It was the Special Olympics of World War 2.

Okay. First, that's rather insulting. The people who participate in the Special Olympics didn't ask to be the way they are. Many were born that way. Others lost limbs in accidents or due to infection or the like. The point of the Special Olympics is that these people are persevering and working hard to overcome the problems they suffer from. And literally, there are no losers, either in the Special Olympics or in the regular Olympics. Just to have a chance to participate... that in and of itself is a great victory and shows skill and ability. Who gives a feth if you don't win the Gold or whatever? You still did your best. That's what matters.

Second, Hitler's war against Russia would have succeeded except for two things. One, the Soviets managed to convince Britain and the U.S. to open a war on a second front, which forced Hitler to split his attention. If the U.S. had waited one year further to invade? Hitler may have defeated the Soviets... and we would have had a much more difficult time in France and Italy as a result. Two, one of the worse winters in written European history hit, to the point that oil froze in engines. If the winter had been milder, the Nazis would have been able to send additional supplies and vehicles into the Soviet Union and may very well have taken Stalingrad and Moscow. The fact is, we (the Allies) got lucky. While we would have eventually prevailed in any event (as the U.S. was untouched by the war and able to build a lot of tanks and ships that Germany and Japan couldn't effectively touch), it would have been a far bloodier war if the Soviets had fallen... all because of a winter far colder than normal.

Both the original quote, and the response to it, are riddled with historical inaccuracy.

Let us start with the statement that "I really think you should drop Stalingrad as an example. That battle was pretty much decided by who could afford to sustain their stupidity for the longest. It was the Special Olympics of World War 2"

I would recommend, because it can argue my point far more eloquently than I, "The Beginning of the Road: The Story of the Battle for Stalingrad," by Vasily Chuikov (the soviet commander of the 64th army and senior commander for the city of Stalingrad). Look from the Soviet perspective. The Luftwaffe has far more, and superior air power to you, and it's far enough south that the weather stays clear, even in the wintertime. It might get cold, but annual precipitation in and around Stalingrad averages at around 12.5 inches a year, with most of it falling in June. link, so the planes are likely hammering things in the open.

Despite popular perception of the Wehrmacht being this armored column smashing through things, the armored corps of Germany was inferior to the Soviets in a purely engineering sense. This is before the Panther tank came out in force, so the mainstays of the Germans were the PZIIIE and the PZIVD. Both tanks had worse armor protection and weaker cannons (superior anti-infantry weapons on the PZIV though) than the main Soviet opponent, the T-34. Furthermore, the T-34s were built in far greater numbers. The main problem that the Soviet tanks had, in fact, was their lack of air cover, and vulnerability to being bombed, as well as a veterancy issue, with the Wehrmact being far more experienced.

The "one rifle to five soldiers" thing, is largely a myth, and a holdover from WW1, wherein the Russian supply situation was far worse. In fact, soviet assault plans for during the city relied extensively on grenade throwing and automatic weapon usage, neither of which are items you'd expect an out of supply force to have.  (see book, especially the end note, where he goes into squad level tactics). In fact, during the battle, Soviet rates of fire were higher, and had similar accuracy to Wehrmacht soldiers. What problems the Soviets did usually have were for aviation  and vehicle fuel, as well as back line logistics. (Lend lease sent 450,000 trucks to the soviets in 1942 alone)


It wasn't the strength of any particular branch of the German army per' se that led to their immense tactical success, but rather the coordination between branches being so precise that was what lead to the conquest of most of Europe.   Now consider the Soviet position. It is remarkably similar to the Viet Cong tactics in the Vietnam war. By "hugging" the enemy, keeping their lines close to yours, you can negate most of the effect of the opposing air power. This gets even worse in a city, because even when it's mostly rubble, shattered buildings do a great job of hiding troop positions from the air. Furthermore, armor does not function well in cities. Tanks are relatively easy to destroy by massed fire, (bazookas were fairly common in WW2), especially when they cannot move easily. Furtermore, they are going to be more or less restricted to the streets, which are the most vulnerable point in any urban battlescape.  By pulling the Wehrmacht coordination out of a loop, by buttoning up in a city, made a great deal of tactical sense for an army that had been repeatedly outmaneuvered during the summer of 42.

From the Wehrmact point of view, yes, Stalingrad was a disaster, and there's no real way to argue around it. But you have to recall the German strategic position at the outbreak. Germany had, as mentioned above, a huge reliance on aviation and armor to make their war machine work. Tanks and planes require oil, and quite a bit of it, in order to function. There was some limited success in usage of sythenol to run things, but the German forces were plauged by fuel issues throughout the entire war. Moscow was a political target, but largely a symbolic one. Stalingrad, on the other hand, opened the door to the Caucases, and to the Caspian Sea, both of which had extensive petroleum drilling at the time of the war. Therefore, Stalingrad needs to be taken. It was General Paulus's stated opinion that after the bashing the Soviet armies took on the Don river bank, that they'd collapse out of the city with just a bit of pushing, a statement that certainly held true when storming cities like Minsk, Vitebsk, and Pskov, all of which had battered Soviet armies fall back into them, resist frantically, and get wiped out.

Obviously, he turned out to be wrong, but it was a reasonable assumption to make in late August. Perhaps he should have tried to bypass the city somehow, cut it off from reinforcement across the Volga, but that's a tricky thing to do. German armies were already quite overextended and there were a bunch of troops sitting in Stalingrad, and exposing your rear to them would be difficult. I have not done analysis, but I do not think the Germans had the manpower to circumvallate the city and continue onward.


As the above analysis shows, the STAVKA was hardly helpless in the face of German aggression, and it was more than bad weather and a bailout from the western allies that saved them. Danman has it exactly right. Operation Torch was a sideshow. El Alamein had around 116,000 combined German and Italian soldiers, about an eighth of what they committed to Stalingrad alone, let alone the other aspects of the front in the war in the east. The real American assault started with Operation Overlord, which began on June 6th, 1944. By that point, the Soviets had already

Won Stalingrad (750,000 German soldiers killed or wounded, 900 German aircraft lost)
Won Kursk  (Another 170,000 German soldiers killed or wounded, along with 720 tanks and assault guns and 681 aircraft)
Retaken Smolensk (another 200-250,000 German soldiers killed/wounded)
Re-crossed the Dniepr river (casualty estimates hard to get due to scattered front and it being more a mass of small battles than one big one. *lowest* German casualty estimates are around 400,000)

They were gearing up for Operation Bagration, which would throw the Germans out of Soviet soil for good.

In comparison, the damage the Western Allies inflicted was relatively light. Overlord-Cobra managed to kill/wound about 400,000 German soldiers, and that was the single largest concentration of German losses. Furthermore, German deployment and supply priorities put roughly 3 times as much men and material against the Soviets as against the Western Allies, (And the soviets still advanced far faster.)


As for the winter of 41/42. Yes. We all hear stories about how tit got so cold the tank fuel froze, and how the Germans didn't have winter uniforms expecting a quick victory.

Except.

German advances were virtually nil in the winter of 1939/40 against France, where the weather was far more mild.
42/43 already was seeing Soviet counterattacks.

German bombers routinely wouldn't fly in the rain, largely due to visibility issues. The biggest problem in the winter largely wasn't the freeze, it was the snow, keeping the planes, which the Wehrmacht extensively relied upon, on the ground. This would have occurred whether or not it got so cold. Furthermore, even when the snow melted, you had roughly six weeks in 42 where the entire country turned to mud. This further stalled advance. In the spring. 


Lastly, supposing that the Soviet union had actually fell? I, for one, do not see the western Allies getting into Europe. If the Soviet Union goes, then suddenly Germany has about 4 times as many soldiers to oppose landings, guard beaches, and counterattack at points of incursion. Furthermore, the annexation of Baku oil means that the fuel problems are largely gone. The German plan to react to an allied invasion of Northern France called for an armored reserve to throw the invaders back into the sea (since it would be hard to amphibiously assault with the sort of equipment that is required for anti-tank fighting). This never happened, largely because by the time June 44 rolled around, there wasn't enough fuel to keep an armored division or two some 60 miles away from the beaches (where they're out of close ground support range), drive them up to the allied points of incursion and start fighting.

Lastly, for the Western allies, this was not a war of survival, and for the U.S., not even a war in which they'd been directly attacked. While public support to smash Japan was high, the war fervor against Germany was far lower. Quite conceivably, America could have built an army that no amount of German preparation could have defeated, but it would have been hard, bitter fighting all the way, and whether or not the political will to endure such a struggle is a definitely open question.

In conclusion, neither STAVKA nor the Wehramacht were staffed by idiots. The battle of Stalingrad was not simply people charging at each other and getting mowed down by machine guns. The Eastern Front of WW2 held far greater concentrations of men, armor, planes, fuel, and casualties than the Western Front ever did. If anything, it's not the Soviet Union that helped the Western advance out, it's the Allied support (especially in Lend-Lease, some 30% of soviet self-propelled artillery was American made, and a lot of their fuel and supply trucks came from the States) that facilitated the Soviet victory.

Best wishes,
Corgatha Taldorthar.

[VAE]

 

You have it utterly right. I admire you for having the patience to write the huge post clearing the situation up, as after seeing many with the "historical knowledge" akin to someone saying "Heh heh ,my grandma was not an ape" when presented with evolutionary theory.
I would only add that although in the beginning Stalingrad taking did make sense, it soon was shown to be a "bleeding resistor" for the german forces, especially since certain fat marshal failed to hold to his bold claims about the amount of supplies he will drop in, and the hardheadness of certain guy with chaplin mustache to fly one into stalin's face.
BTW the soviet film Fall of Berlin offers the funniest portrayal of Hitler ever done (and one of our best known humorists, Jan Werich plays Goring!)

One more thing  - towards the end of war, the western theatres saw german soldiers who needed to recover, and the "n00bs" much like Finland saw the crap de crap of the armed air forces of USSR

[Tangent]

*applauds* That was well written. And based on fact and history; the problem with alternative reality historical adaptations is of course writing up a scenario that is plausible when compared to the reality; in some ways, I think science fiction and fantasy is easier to write compared to historical revision fiction because everyone knows the Soviets kicked Nazi ass. Eventually. ^^

@danman: No. There is no charity. Every act of kindness and decency in fact has an ulterior motive. This motive may be something as simple as performing charitable acts because of the sense of self-satisfaction and happiness one can feel when doing something nice for other people. We are, at heart, a selfish and self-serving species. Even the act of a mother sacrificing herself to save the life of her child is in fact an instinctive programmed response to ensure the continuation of the genetic lineage.

Or, at least that's one theory of thought. It's this philosophy which states a corporation exists merely to maximize profits and that the concept of the social responsibility of business is in fact flawed and should be abolished, even when this social responsibility can enhance profits through creating an image of the corporation being good for society; the profits earned through social responsibility methods is said to be less than that of a company thinking only of itself.

As for my own actual beliefs? I suspect the lack of vulgarity and personal attacks in the webcomic reviews I write is probably more indicative of my philosophical beliefs than my snarky comments about Mink and what happened to his mom.