Dear Relic, can I have a word please? (Russian history)

The_Riddler:

My analysis of the European Union was a general one, not an in-depth one. There's a lot to it that I don't understand, for sure, but in layman's terms it explains more or less how Europe is suffering some of these woes. There are cultural, religious, political and very specific economical aspects involved in the Political Integrations of Europe, and some critics could even say, in its failure (this last part is very debatable).

As far as war goes: yes it is a learning curve. Just because human beings keep engaging in wars, doesn'tt mean they haven't learned positive things form them. Let me give you some examples to strengthen my point:

-Human Rights. They were, in large part, based around atrocities in wars, amongst other situations. Sure, there's still violations left and right, but trust me: the world is far safer today, than it was in the feudal ages, or even the renaissance.

-Less casualties. Even if were to exaggerate the casualties in today's conflicts, modern warfare causes much reduced casualties. They are still too high, and there are still atrocities, but they are much, much more isolated than before. In feudal Japan, the very fabric of society was based around constant warfare. During Attila the Hun's time, waves upon waves of soldiers simply died. The reason for this, is that our weaponry now provides much better force multiplication (a single soldier can wield a light machine gun which in past eras would've required several armed men to just match the same firepower).

Both World Wars were a BIG eye opener in the way we fight wars. Not only was chivalry sent out the window, but a semi-mandatory body of law was set to regulate them. Yes, countries still break these laws (such as illegal weaponry), but International Scrutiny plays a much bigger role today, than it did before. This is the reason why military superpowers remain "friendly to the world" even as they wage war: they can't fight them all.

Unless a country shoots itself into a Total War policy, wars today are much more limited. Look at NATO conflicts, for example: The U.S. (and other miltiary superpowers) could obliterate an average opposing force very, very fast if it held nothing back, but international pressure would ensue. It's now a game of cloak and dagger.

That evolution, is all the result of lessons learned through warfare. Human beings have only truly been around for a very small amount, and while sometimes we repeat the same mistakes, for the most part we do learn.

The human race as a whole has no learning curve as it involves different people over time, that make the same mistakes repeatedly. As for your examples:

-Human Rights is an artificial legal term. In reality, humans behave like humans always have. International laws do not prevent or change this behaviour.

-The DAILY AVERAGE casualty rate increases with time as weapons become more efficient, conflicts are larger on a geographical scale and wars are mostly fought on a nationstate basis.

-The largest military superpower, the U.S., is currently involved in numerous wars and has fought in the top 3 nationstate based wars, by death toll, in the past 100 years.

The world has not seen a single second/minute/hour/day without war in the last few thousand years. Some of the largest wars, measured by daily average casualty rate, were in the past 100 years. With current weapons of mass destruction and the knowledge that humanity uses everything in its ability, the long term trend is very clear. An analysis of the bigger picture unambiguously predicts more wars to come.

Thanks for the response! You mention traitors and deserters in this post which certainly implies that some Soviet soldiers retreated. Earlier, you said that no Soviet soldiers ever retreated. How can you have deserters and traitors in such a situation?

Do you have any comment about politically-motivated history textbooks in Russia and Putin's recent efforts to minimize knowledge about the negative parts of Soviet involvement in WWII? I haven't examined primary sources myself, so I can't say whether you or the historian is more accurate, but at present I would say that the historian is more likely to have an objective view of the matter.

When I see an article like this about modern Russia, I greatly doubt the objectivity of Russian textbooks regarding anything that could be considered "patriotic."

I'm not saying that you're intentionally biased, but is it possible that the primary sources that the historian and the western scholarly community rely upon are ignored and/or concealed in Russian schools and scholarship with the aim of glorifying the "Great Patriotic War" instead of depicting all events, whether positive or negative? As a school teacher, I'm not sure whether you've examined western scholarship about the Soviet Union, and in doing so you might be able to figure out whether there are sources you're unaware of that support the historian's statements.

You haven't said yourself that western scholars intentionally view the Soviet Union negatively (in the present day), but other Russian posters have, and I want to respond to this in case it concerns you as well. Having studied European history at a major university in the United States, I can say that many of our scholars are not American (one of my history professors was Bulgarian) and that I have never met an American history professor who cares very much about nationalism and patriotism on a personal level. The vast majority of American professors are Democrats (large-scale studies have demonstrated this) and often have a negative view of American foreign policy and the American military's actions in the present day and in the past. They actively criticize the actions of the U.S. military in WWII, Vietnam, and Iraq. This differs substantially from history education in the United States at the high school (secondary) level, where history is taught in a more superficial and less critical manner (this is why I strongly differentiate between university professors and high school teachers -- on average, they will be educated in very different ways). In my experience, if a history professor in America makes a statement regarding historical data, there is no political motivation behind the statement at all -- they never even think about this.

Well, 1 thing at a time.
Er. A. All the arguments are about the plot being historically accurate when it's obviously not. Devs didn't mention a single historical document (apart from the Order .227, which one is presented as a poor translated thing), just random parahistorical books.
And they're lying about the main data source - Vasily Grossman book "Life and Fate". Not a single thing that offends my feelings exists in that book.

So there can't be any research behind those accusations as there are no real sources quoted.

B. Russia is a unique experience, trust me with that. People here pay a lot of attention to the legacy of the ancestors. It's buried too deep into the complex matter called 'mysterious russian soul'.
So you can't put away the honoring of the heroes as it's tradition. And that tradition grows stronger when it's suppressed from the foreigners.

C. Why don't you try to look at the subject from the Russian side? Is it too difficult for developers to make a warning message I've mentioned above? Does it take too much time or sources to make an apology to the angry people?

Relics don't even try to make a contact there. They've bunkered themselves out of the world, that's all.

Russians are very hard to wake, but when you do that they can be overreactive and dangerous. It may be real that some zealots will come for the devs heads literally. As a petition starter I'm trying to make people believe in a violence-free way to solve problems. I'm doing my best to calm them.
What if I fail at that because of Relic ignorance? Does it really take to loose someone to get gears working?
Relics've waken a real shitstorm here in Russia instead of dealing with the simple matter: a warning + an excuse.

That's a 10 Mb patch, you see? It's less than a day of work.
But they're refusing to do a shit.

So we're doing what we can to bring their attention to the problem - petitioning, mailing newspapers and so on.

Some of the largest wars, measured by daily average casualty rate, were in the past 100 years. With current weapons of mass destruction and the knowledge that humanity uses everything in its ability, the long term trend is very clear. An analysis of the bigger picture unambiguously predicts more wars to come.

The world population is far larger now than in the past, making daily average casualty rate a poor measure. You need to look at the proportion of populations that die as a result of violence. By this measure, the world is a far less dangerous place than it was thousands of years ago.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a good read by Steven Pinker that addresses this exact issue.

ITT: Russians today.

Not looking so good.

@Curity:

Are people in Russia actually aware that the Red Army, as heroic as it was defeating the fascist thread, also may have commited some war crimes. Don't get me wrong this does not mean that individual soldiers of the Red army are more or less evil than soldiers of other nations. But the bigger an army is and the longer it participates in a war the more warcrimes there are.
I mean is the fact that there were warcrimes alongside the great heroism of the Red Army acknowledged in russian society? There was great heroism and sacrifice without question, but russian society should also deal with the dark side effects of such a revenge-driven conflict.

The whole world is aware that bad stuff happened and yet Russia and some CIS states seem to refuse to believe it. The majority of historians all over the globe acknowledges these darker facts about the Red Army.
I am not saying Relic's portayal was accurate. What I'm saying is that the world is aware that the Red Army commited warcrimes. And Russia should acknowledge that.

Which does not render the great heroism that was an unforgettable part of the Red Army less important. But mistakes have to be admitted. Otherwise you'll loose credibility. As I said before, in a coflict of that scale and with such a long timespan warcrimes are bound to happen. On both sides. I hope you know that. I hope you are not in denial.

The world population is far larger now than in the past, making daily average casualty rate a poor measure. You need to look at the proportion of populations that die as a result of violence. By this measure, the world is a far less dangerous place than it was thousands of years ago.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a good read by Steven Pinker that addresses this exact issue.

My original point is that humanity has no learning curve when it comes to wars, not violence as a whole. A large part of violence in earlier times cannot be classified as "war". Daily average casualty rate measures the average death toll per day per war, thus making it easier to compare wars over time.

The problem, however, is that estimates of casualty rates of recent wars are far more precise, when compared to earlier wars. This holds for the total world population as well.

Additionally, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined approaches the subject from an overall psychological point of view, whereas I have an event-based approach, adjusting for war participants only.

You ask to be taken seriously and show soviet soldiers respect.. And then proceed to piss on every single soldier who did not share the nazi sentiment. Fine we can call them Axis forces, Ostheer or Wehrmacht, but please have the courtesy to be smart enough to not call them nazi.

By proxy, your own words could be reversed to call every single soviet soldier some really nasty things based on the actions of some. Naturally we'd just see more death threats from the internet army of people in the worlds smallest shoes, so let's refrain from that.

Dear sir, I ask you and everyone whom I insulted by using this word to forgive me.
I was using "nazists" word not to offend someone, but because of my bad English - I couldn't find a good word in time.
Im sorry for this again, will use "Axis forces".

ITT People think recieving death threats is a good motivation for compromise.

@Curity:

Are people in Russia actually aware that the Red Army, as heroic as it was defeating the fascist thread, also may have commited some war crimes. Don't get me wrong this does not mean that individual soldiers of the Red army are more or less evil than soldiers of other nations. But the bigger an army is and the longer it participates in a war the more warcrimes there are.
I mean is the fact that there were warcrimes alongside the great heroism of the Red Army acknowledged in russian society? There was great heroism and sacrifice without question, but russian society should also deal with the dark side effects of such a revenge-driven conflict.

The whole world is aware that bad stuff happened and yet Russia and some CIS states seem to refuse to believe it. The majority of historians all over the globe acknowledges these darker facts about the Red Army.
I am not saying Relic's portayal was accurate. What I'm saying is that the world is aware that the Red Army commited warcrimes. And Russia should acknowledge that.

Which does not render the great heroism that was an unforgettable part of the Red Army less important. But mistakes have to be admitted. Otherwise you'll loose credibility. As I said before, in a coflict of that scale and with such a long timespan warcrimes are bound to happen. On both sides. I hope you know that. I hope you are not in denial.

Don't know abut Russia, but in Ukraine kids are studying about this war crimes. But.. lets say.. not so detailed.
Agree with you, everything has two sides, and good sources are those which are showing us both.

-The DAILY AVERAGE casualty rate increases with time as weapons become more efficient, conflicts are larger on a geographical scale and wars are mostly fought on a nationstate basis.

The average casualty rate per worldwide capita has never been lower, though.

You russian guys want sympathy for your ancestors by being offensive and threatening other people. You really think you will accomplish anything?
Generosity would be a good start to gain sympathy (because its the opposite of demanding) or taking responsibility. I dont read much of that in this thread, more alot of hatred.

The average casualty rate per worldwide capita has never been lower, though.

Again: I am adjusting for war participants, thereby not comparing it to total world population, which grows exponentially, making it a quite unfair comparison.

My original point is that humanity has no learning curve when it comes to wars, not violence as a whole. A large part of violence in earlier times cannot be classified as "war". Daily average casualty rate measures the average death toll per day per war, thus making it easier to compare wars over time.

The problem, however, is that estimates of casualty rates of recent wars are far more precise, when compared to earlier wars. This holds for the total world population as well.

Additionally, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined approaches the subject from an overall psychological point of view, whereas I have an event-based approach, adjusting for war participants only.

Casualty rate has indeed increased, because of the lethality of modern weapons, but you also have to take into account that wars, in general, take a lot less time. Some major campaigns in ancient history could have garnered more than 50,000 casualties in a single large battle alone. The conflict in Syria has barely surpassed 100,000 deaths.

Human rights DO matter, because while it is true that it is only a legal term, it is peer pressure and social pressure that inhibits illegal conduct. Given the chance to steal and get away with it, most people would do it, but the social system prevents you from doing it. The same applies to war, although to a much lesser degree.

The learning curve exists, but like I said, it is extremely "slow" comparable to our lifetimes. The world today, is A LOT less violent in general. Wars CAN be affected by everyday violence, as a failure in perceived security/safety in society can bring about civil unrest (The Arab Spring is complex, but the spark that lit the fire was a case of self immolation, not exactly the most traditional declaration of war, civil or otherwise). I live in a country considered to be one of the most violent in the world in the past 7 years (it has "receded" recently), many people were wondering if we were a failed State, and some were even starting to take it into their own hands.

Wars today, excepting the two world wars, are largely less violent than before. There is also a factor that we are not taking into account (Although The_Riddler mentioned it indirectly with regards to precise count): The media. We are so connected now to what happens in the other side of the world, that the world seems more violent, but these daily live broadcasts of war efforts only truly began with Gulf War in the early 90's, when CNN provided satellite coverage I believe. Hell, in World War 2, a considerable percentage of the casualties were not even directly related to combat engagements (pillaging, famine, disease, and other various actions against non combatants).

This is all off topic now, though, as interesting as it is discussing it.

...........I live in a country considered to be one of the most violent in the world in the past 7 years (it has "receded" recently), many people were wondering if we were a failed State, and some were even starting to take it into their own hands.

That will be the USA then?

Wars today, excepting the two world wars, are largely less violent than before. There is also a factor that we are not taking into account (Although The_Riddler mentioned it indirectly with regards to precise count): The media. We are so connected now to what happens in the other side of the world, that the world seems more violent, but these daily live broadcasts of war efforts only truly began with Gulf War in the early 90's, when CNN provided satellite coverage I believe.

During my teenage years, I watched the Vietnam conflict unfold on UK TV almost nightly, year on year. I assure you, viewers felt 'connected', even if the broadcast was not instantaneous. This may be in part bcs then the media was not apparently constrained in their reporting. If memory serves correctly, the US military learnt their lesson from that by GWI, and took more care to censor violent footage, e.g. we knew at the end of GWI that a huge column of fleeing Iraqis were being strafed a la Falaise pocket: I'm reasonably certain it was not broadcast live

The news you watched on Vietnam, were not daily news, most likely. You could not watch "live" broadcasts of the War, either. People during WW2 received coverage of the war, but it was largely edited and approved by the State.

Sure, nowadays footage and reports from war fronts are still edited and approved, but there's little you can do when a soldier pulls out an iphone, records and uploads it (Syria) or when you have an ambush or two during live satellite TV. Information travels A LOT faster now.

I live in Mexico. During the height of the violence here, Ciudad Juarez (north of the country) either matched the casualties in Baghdad, or even surpassed them at some points. Stuff got out of hand in certain, isolated parts of the countries, but it was very bad.

@Curity:

Are people in Russia actually aware that the Red Army, as heroic as it was defeating the fascist thread, also may have commited some war crimes. Don't get me wrong this does not mean that individual soldiers of the Red army are more or less evil than soldiers of other nations. But the bigger an army is and the longer it participates in a war the more warcrimes there are.
I mean is the fact that there were warcrimes alongside the great heroism of the Red Army acknowledged in russian society? There was great heroism and sacrifice without question, but russian society should also deal with the dark side effects of such a revenge-driven conflict.

The whole world is aware that bad stuff happened and yet Russia and some CIS states seem to refuse to believe it. The majority of historians all over the globe acknowledges these darker facts about the Red Army.
I am not saying Relic's portayal was accurate. What I'm saying is that the world is aware that the Red Army commited warcrimes. And Russia should acknowledge that.

Which does not render the great heroism that was an unforgettable part of the Red Army less important. But mistakes have to be admitted. Otherwise you'll loose credibility. As I said before, in a coflict of that scale and with such a long timespan warcrimes are bound to happen. On both sides. I hope you know that. I hope you are not in denial.

You can't deny something that's not proved yet, you see?
If there WAS a single documentary proof on such things like NKVD elimination teams directly behind the soviet forces, or soviets been burning civil buildings on retreat, there won't be any arguments.

Relics insist that's the story is authentic granting no proof. They don't even give away their true sources.

So all we do ask is either grant us the documentary proof on all the matters we're arguing about or make a 'fictional story disclaimer'. As we're aware that there is no proof to that we're cutting time to the disclaimer thing.

You can't deny something that's not proved yet, you see?
If there WAS a single documentary proof on such things like NKVD elimination teams directly behind the soviet forces, or soviets been burning civil buildings on retreat, there won't be any arguments.

Relics insist that's the story is authentic granting no proof. They don't even give away their true sources.

So all we do ask is either grant us the documentary proof on all the matters we're arguing about or make a 'fictional story disclaimer'. As we're aware that there is no proof to that we're cutting time to the disclaimer thing.

bahahaha another person who speaks for the tress. were you elected/appointed by a body of people to speak for them? if the answer is nope then please stop saying WE and say I because that is the only person your allowed to speak for.

bahahaha another person who speaks for the tress. were you elected/appointed by a body of people to speak for them? if the answer is nope then please stop saying WE and say I because that is the only person your allowed to speak for.

Yes I WAS elected by a group of people to speak for them.
I'm the petition organizer here.

Do you wish to know something else?

[doublepost]