Russia Ukraine War 2022

Who will win this war?.


  • Total voters
    440

Master Chief

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2022
Messages
872
Likes
2,980
Country flag
My British master, I detect hint of disgust in your tone. Aren't you the one serving your American masters.

Learn about German–Soviet Axis talks before posting.
Before the Soviet Union.. France, Denmark etc..had signed non aggression pacts with Hitler.. So, we know how that went as well.. But, no one in the west talks about these other pacts.. Soviet Union was just buying time, and so was Hitler..
 

Waanar

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
3,102
Likes
20,091
Country flag
Before the Soviet Union.. France, Denmark etc..had signed non aggression pacts with Hitler.. So, we know how that went as well.. But, no one in the west talks about these other pacts.. Soviet Union was just buying time, and so was Hitler..
Chamberlain gifted Czechoslovakia to Hitler without them having any say in the matter.

It's laughable if people are trying to pin Hitler's rise on the tacit Soviet support.
There was an outright territory fire sale by the colonial powers of Western Europe to appease Germany in the beginning.
 

Varzone

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2022
Messages
1,492
Likes
3,388
Country flag
Are you obsessed somehow with Poland? It's not the first time, you're trying to humiliate Poland and Poles. Are you paid?

1. The borders between Poland, USSR and Germany were internationally recognized. There was nothing to dispute. If Pakistan offered to India peace talks and resolutions to surrender Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, India accept these "peace proposals"?
2. Don't we have right to establish defence treaty?
3. Partial mobilisation march 23 1939 (only 4 divisions of total 39 and 14 detached brigades) was an answer to German demads (march 21) to annexation of Free City of Dantzig and establish exterritorial "corridor" on polish soil to East Prussia. March 15 - 17 German army took Czechoslovakia. Did we have no reason to be afraid?
4. What prosecution are you talking about? May you point any law in force then? In my village there were about 10 German families prior 1939. After German invasion, all of them were given an offer that cannot be refused to adopt "volklistliste" ore "reichsliste". Mr Welke refused. He was beaten by German police almost to death. Would he have refused if he had been earlier harassed?
5. There was no ultimatum to Danzig.
6. Annexation of Zaolzie was bad. Earlier the Czechs invaded Zaolzie (january 23 1919). I do not justify, i just inform.
7. Ultimatum to Lithuania - complicated issue. No time to explain.
8.There was no food blockade. And there was no possibility of such action - FC of Danzig bordered East Prussia.
9. German commercial airplain? Where, when? before september 1 1939? In my opinion - bullshit
10. Multiple German massacres? Where, when? before september 1 1939? In my opinion - another bullshit.
image0.jpg
 

Varzone

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2022
Messages
1,492
Likes
3,388
Country flag
It's a war dude .everyone will do it when your enemy is fighting from the so called "cities"
Exactly, that's why I don't understand why putin simps like playing morality championships on this thread when everyone is guilty of war crimes.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
1,563
Likes
5,055
Country flag
Exactly, that's why I don't understand why putin simps like playing morality championships on this thread when everyone is guilty of war crimes.
because SCALES matter. If i am BETTER than you, then i am better than you. Doesn't make me perfect. SCALE of war crimes is relevant. Else there would be no difference between Nazi german forces and Bhutanese forces.

Russia has so far proved it is BETTER than USA/UK/NATO when it comes to war crimes.

No one argued a side is perfect. And as the saying goes, perfection is the enemy of the good.
 

ww2historian

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
995
Likes
3,185
Country flag
The United nations seems to care. They've called for all military activities in the immediate vicinity of the plant to cease immediately and not to target its facilities or surroundings,” Mr. Guterres said in a statement expressing his grave concern over the unfolding situation.
Russia should cave first on this one. You just can't fight every battle with a bunch of madmen like Zelensky and his henchmen. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/08/1124452
I really think Russia should agree to demilitarize this area. It might be a sign of weakness by some, but in reality it then puts the ball in Zelensky's hands. It will also bring more attention to this story, and any person with half a brain will know that Russia is not shelling a nuclear plant that they've been occupying for months. A person might ask, how do you shell your own area? Do you point the artillery gun straight into the ground??
 

ww2historian

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
995
Likes
3,185
Country flag
Chamberlain gifted Czechoslovakia to Hitler without them having any say in the matter.

It's laughable if people are trying to pin Hitler's rise on the tacit Soviet support.
There was an outright territory fire sale by the colonial powers of Western Europe to appease Germany in the beginning.
That's not completely true. The Sudetenland wanted to join Germany, because they spoke German. Then Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia without firing a shot. I personally have nothing but empathy towards Chamberlain. Can you blame a guy who was trying to avoid the horrors of another world war? In the end nothing and nobody could of prevented WW2. The horrible treaty of Versailles according to Gregory Bateson was the most important event of the 20th century. I found the same pattern after rereading this chapter. The US narrative is to "weaken Russia" which is the same as "punish Russia." This was exactly what the treaty of Versailles was designed to do..."punish Germany" Will we ever learn?
From Versailles to Cybernetics* I have to talk about recent history as it appears to me in my generation and to you in yours and, as I flew in this morning, words began to echo in my mind. These were phrases more thunderous than any I might be able to compose. One of these groups of words was, "The fathers have eaten bitter fruit and the children's teeth are set on edge." Another was the statement of Joyce that "history is that nightmare from which there is no awakening." Another was, "The sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children even to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me." And lastly, not so immediately relevant, but still I think relevant to the problem of social mechanism, "He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars. General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer." We are talking about serious things. I call this lecture "From Versailles to Cybernetics," naming the two historic events of the twentieth century. The word "cybernetics" is familiar, is it not? But how many of you know what happened at Versailles in 1919? The question is, What is going to count as important in the history of the last sixty years? I am sixty-two, and, as I began to think about what I have seen of history in my lifetime, it seemed to me that I had really only seen two moments that would rate as really important from an anthropologist's point of view. One was the events leading up to the Treaty of Versailles, and the other was the cybernetic breakthrough. You may be surprised or shocked that I have not mentioned the A-bomb, or even World War II. I have not mentioned the spread of the automobile, nor of the radio and TV, nor many other things that have occurred in the last sixty years. Let me state my criterion of historical importance: Mammals in general, and we among them, care extremely, not about episodes, but about the patterns of their relation-ships. When you open the refrigerator door and the cat comes up and makes * Previously unpublished. This lecture was given April 21, 1966, to the "Two Worlds Symposium" at Sacramento State College. 475 certain sounds, she is not talking about liver or milk, though you may know very well that that is what she wants. You may be able to guess correctly and give her that—if there is any in the refrigerator. What she actually says is something about the relationship between her-self and you. If you translated her message into words, it would be something like, "dependency, dependency, dependency." She is talking, in fact, about a rather abstract pat-tern within a relationship. From that assertion of a pattern, you are expected to go from the general to the specific—to deduce "milk" or "liver." This is crucial. This is what mammals are about. They are concerned with patterns of relationship, with where they stand in love, hate, respect, dependency, trust, and similar abstractions, vis-àvis somebody else. This is where it hurts us to be put in the wrong. If we trust and find that that which we have trusted was untrustworthy; or if we distrust, and find that that which we distrusted was in fact trust-worthy, we feel bad. The pain that human beings and all other mammals can suffer from this type of error is extreme. If, therefore, we really want to know what are the significant points in history, we have to ask which are the moments in history when attitudes were changed. These are the moments when people are hurt because of their former "values." Think of the house thermostat in your home. The weather changes outdoors, the temperature of the room falls, the thermometer switch in the living room goes through its business and switches on the furnace; and the furnace warms the room and when the room is hot, the thermometer switch turns it off again. The system is what is called a homeostatic circuit or a servocircuit. But there is also a little box in the living room on the wall by which you set the thermostat. If the house has been too cold for the last week, you must move it up from its present setting to make the system now oscillate around a new level. No amount of weather, heat or cold or whatever, will change that setting, which is called the "bias" of the system. The temperature of the house will oscillate, it will get hotter and cooler according to various circumstances, but the setting of the mechanism will not be changed by those changes. But when you go and you move that bias, you will change what we may call the "attitude" of the system. 476 Similarly, the important question about history is: Has the bias or setting been changed? The episodic working out of events under a single stationary setting is really trivial. It is with this thought in mind that I have said that the two most important historic events in my life were the Treaty of Versailles and the discovery of cybernetics. Most of you probably hardly know how the Treaty of Versailles came into being. The story is very simple. World War I dragged on and on; the Germans were rather obviously losing. At this point, George Creel, a public relations man—and I want you not to forget that this man was a granddaddy of modern public relations—had an idea: the idea was that maybe the Germans would surrender if we offered them soft armistice terms. He therefore drew up a set of soft terms, according to which there would be no punitive measures. These terms were drawn up in fourteen points. These Fourteen Points he passed on to President Wilson. If you are going to deceive somebody, you had better get an honest man to carry the message. President Wilson was an almost pathologically honest man and a humanitarian. He elaborated the points in a number of speeches: there were to be "no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages ..." and so on. And the Germans surrendered. We, British and Americans specially the British—continued of course to blockade Germany because we didn't want them to get uppity before the Treaty was signed. So, for another year, they continued to starve. The Peace Conference has been vividly described by aynard Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919). The Treaty was finally drawn up by four men: Clemenceau, "the tiger," who wanted to crush Germany; Lloyd George, who felt it would be politically expedient to get a lot of reparations out of Germany, and some revenge; and Wilson, who had to be bamboozled along. Whenever Wilson would wonder about those Fourteen Points of his, they took him out into the war cemeteries and made him feel ashamed of not being angry with the Germans. Who was the other? Orlando was the other, an Italian. This was one of the great sellouts in the history of our civilization. A most extraordinary event which led fairly directly and inevitably into World War II. It also led (and this is perhaps more 477 interesting than the fact of its leading to World War II) to the total demoralization of German politics. If you promise your boy something, and renege on him, framing the whole thing on a high ethical plane, you will probably find that not only is he very angry with you, but that his moral attitudes deteriorate as long as he feels the unfair whiplash of what you are doing to him. It's not only that World War II was the appropriate response of a nation which had been treated in this particular way; what is more important is the fact that the demoralization of that nation was expectable from this sort of treatment. From the demoralization of Germany, we, too, became demoralized. This is why I say that the Treaty of Versailles was an attitudinal turning point. I imagine that we have another couple of generations of aftereffects from that particular sellout to work through. We are, in fact, like members of the house of Atreus in Greek tragedy. First there was Thyestes' adultery, then Atreus' killing of Thyestes' three children, whom he served to Thyestes at a peace-making feast. Then the murder of Atreus' son, Agamemnon, by Thyestes' son, Aegistheus; and finally the murder of Aegistheus and Clytemnestra by Orestes. It goes on and on. The tragedy of oscillating and self-propagating distrust, hate, and destruction down the generations. I want you to imagine that you come into the middle of one of these sequences of tragedy. How is it for the middle generation of the house of Atreus? They are living in acrazy universe. From the point of view of the people who started the mess, it's not so crazy; they know what happened and how they got there. But the people down the line, who were not there at the beginning, find themselves living in a crazy universe, and find themselves crazy, precisely because they do not know how they got that way. To take a dose of LSD is all right, and you will have the experience of being more or less crazy, but this will make quite good sense because you know you took the dose of LSD. If, on the other hand, you took the LSD by accident, and then find yourself going crazy, not knowing how you got there, this is a terrifying and horrible experience. This is a much more serious and terrible experience, very different from the trip which you can enjoy if you know you took the LSD. 478 Now consider the difference between my generation and you who are under twenty-five. We all live in the same crazy universe whose hate, distrust, and hypocrisy relates back (especially at the international level)' to the Fourteen Points and the Treaty of Versailles. We older ones know how we got here. I can remember my father reading the Fourteen Points at the breakfast table and saying, "By golly, they're going to give them a decent armistice, a decent peace," or something of the kind. And I can remember, but I will not attempt to verbalize, the sort of thing he said when the Treaty of Versailles came out. It wasn't printable. So I know more or less how we got here. But from your point of view, we are absolutely crazy, and you don't know what sort of historic event led to this craziness. "The fathers have eaten bitter fruit and the children's teeth are set on edge." It's all very well for the fathers, they know what they ate. The children don't know what was eaten. Let us consider what is to be expected of people in the aftermath of a major deception. Previous to World War 1, it was generally assumed that compromise and a little hypocrisy are a very important ingredient in the ordinary comfortableness of life. If you read Samuel Butler's Erewhon Revisited, for example, you will see what I mean. All the principal characters in the novel have got themselves into an awful mess: some are due to be executed, and others are due for public scandal, and the religious system of the nation is threatened with collapse. These disasters and tangles are smoothed out by Mrs. Ydgrun (or, as we would say, "Mrs. Grundy " ), the guardian of Erewhonian morals. She carefully reconstructs history, like a jigsaw puzzle, so that nobody is really hurt and nobody is disgraced—still less is anybody executed. This was a very comfortable philosophy. A little hypocrisy and a little compromise oil the wheels of social life. But after the great deception, this philosophy is untenable. You are perfectly correct that something is wrong; and that the something wrong is of the nature of a deceit and a hypocrisy. You live in the midst of corruption. Of course, your natural responses are puritanical. Not sexual puritanism, because it is not a sexual deceit that lies in the 479 background. But an extreme puritanism against compromise, a puritanism against hypocrisy, and this ends up as a reduction of life to little pieces. It is the big integrated structures of life that seem to have carried the lunacy, and so you try to focus down on the smallest things. "He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars. General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer." The general good smells of hypocrisy to the rising generation. I don't doubt that if you asked George Creel to justify the Fourteen Points, he would urge the general good. It is possible that that little operation of his saved a few thousand American lives in 1918. I don't know how many it cost in World War II, and since in Korea and Vietnam. I recall that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified by the general good and saving American lives. There was a lot of talk about " unconditional surrender," perhaps because we could - not trust ourselves to honor a conditional armistice. Was the fate of Hiroshima determined at Versailles? Now I want to talk about the other significant historical event which has happened in my lifetime, approximately in 1946-47. This was the growing together of a number of ideas which had developed in different places during World War II. We may call the aggregate of these ideas cybernetics, or communication theory, or information theory, or systems theory. The ideas were generated in many places: in Vienna by Bertalanffy, in Harvard by Wiener, in Princeton by von Neumann, in Bell Telephone labs by Shannon, in Cambridge by raik, and so on. All these separate developments in different intellectual centers dealt with communicational problems, especially with the problem of what sort of a thing is an organized system. You will notice that everything I said about history and about Versailles is a discussion of organized systems and their properties. Now I want to say that we are developing a certain amount of rigorous scientific understanding of these very mysterious organized systems. Our knowledge today is way ahead of anything that George Creel could have said. He was an applied scientist before the science was ripe to be applied. One of the roots of cybernetics goes back to Whitehead and Russell and what is called the Theory of Logical Types. In principle, 480 the name is not the thing named, and the name of the name is not the name, and so on. In terms of this powerful theory, a message about war is not part of the war. Let me put it this way: the message "Let's play chess" is not a move in the game of chess. It is a message in a more abstract language than the language of the game on the board. The message "Let's make peace on such and such terms" is not within the same ethical system as the deceits and tricks of battle. They say that all is fair in love and war, and that may be true within love and war, but outside and about love and war, the ethics are a little different. Men have felt for centuries that treachery in a truce or peace-making is worse than trickery in battle. Today this ethical principle receives rigorous theoretical and scientific support. The ethics can now be looked at with formality, rigor, logic, mathematics, and all that, and stands on a different sort of basis from mere invocational preachments. We do not have to feel our way; we can sometimes know right from wrong. I included cybernetics as the second historic event of importance in my lifetime because I have at least a dim hope that we can bring ourselves to use this new understanding with some honesty. If we understand a little bit of what were doing, maybe it will help us to find our way out of the maze of hallucinations that we have created around our-selves. Cybernetics is, at any rate, a contribution to change—not simply a change in attitude, but even a change in the under-standing of what an attitude is. The stance that I have taken in choosing what is important in history—saying that the important things are the moments at which attitude is determined, the moments at which the bias of the thermostat is changed—this stance is derived directly from cybernetics. These are thoughts shaped by events from 1946 and after. But pigs do not go around ready-roasted. We now have a lot of cybernetics, a lot of games theory, and the beginnings of understanding of complex systems. But any understanding can be used in destructive ways. I think that cybernetics is the biggest bite out of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge that mankind has taken in the last 2000 years. 481 But most of such bites out of the apple have proved to be rather indigestible—usually for cybernetic reasons. Cybernetics has integrity within itself, to help us to not be seduced by it into more lunacy, but we cannot trust it to keep us from sin. For example, the state departments of several nations are today using games theory, backed up by computers, as a way of deciding international policy. They identify first what seem to be the rules of the game of international interaction; they then consider the distribution of strength, weapons, strategic points, grievances, etc., over the geography and the identified nations. They then ask the computers to compute what should be our next move to minimize the chances of our losing the game. The computer then cranks and heaves and gives an answer, and there is some temptation to obey the computer. After all, if you follow the computer you are a little lessresponsible than if you made up your own mind. But if you do what the computer advises, you assert by that move that you support the rules of the game which you fed into the computer. You have affirmed the rules of that game. No doubt nations of the other side also have computers and are playing similar games, and are affirming the rules of the game that they are feeding to their computers. The result is a system in which the rules of international interaction become more and more rigid. I submit to you that what is wrong with the international field is that the rules need changing. The question is not that is the best thing to do within the rules as they are at the moment. The question is how can we get away from the rules within which we have been operating for the last ten or twenty years, or since the Treaty of Versailles. The problem is to change the rules, and insofar as we let our cybernetic inventions—the computers—lead us into more and more rigid situations, we shall in fact be maltreating and abusing the first hopeful advance since 1918. And, of course, there are other dangers latent in cybernetics and many of these are still unidentified. We do not know, for example, what effects may follow from the computerization of all government dossiers. But this much is sure, that there is also latent in cybernetics the means of achieving a new and perhaps more human outlook, a 482 means of changing our philosophy of control and a means of seeing our own follies in wider perspective.
 

ww2historian

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
995
Likes
3,185
Country flag
This guy on twitter is providing excellent info. The HIMARS are not a game changer, just like the M777. If they were, why is Ukraine losing so bad on the battlefield? Losing Pesky is so significant, that it will cause a total collapse of the Donbas in a few weeks.
Will Schryver

@imetatronink


M-142 HIMARS MLRS
Several weeks ago the US tow-behind M-777 155mm howitzer was being touted as the "game-changer" that would remedy the misfortunes of war for Ukraine.
As I recall, a total of about 110 units were delivered, of which ~75% are now claimed to have been destroyed.
They have produced little discernible effect on the battlefield, except to demonstrate what should have already been obvious: Snake Island is just a target rock until a Russian flag flies over Odessa.
Now the M-142 HIMARS multiple launch rocket system has replaced the M-777 as the wunderwaffe du jour. 8 units are claimed to have been delivered so far, of which Russia claims to have already destroyed 2. Recent reports say 4 more launchers will be delivered, along with 1000 rockets.
So, an even dozen total … or now just ten, as the case may be. With a thousand rockets in their quiver.
Ukrainian sources claim HIMARS has been used to destroy 20 Russian ammo dumps. Some of these claims are disputed, but for the moment we’ll assume they’re true.
There are almost certainly HUNDREDS of similar Russian ammo dumps dispersed throughout Ukraine. Ammo is not the sort of thing you pile all in one place, especially on an active battlefield.
Still, there is little doubt a few ammo dumps have been hit by the M-142. It does, after all, purport to be a highly accurate system.
But this fevered talk of a dozen six-shooter rocket systems appreciably affecting the outcome of this war, at this juncture? It’s an absurdity. It betrays a shocking lack of understanding of the basic mathematics of high-intensity conflict.
First of all, one must consider the Russian countermeasures, of which a further dispersion of ammo dumps is almost certain.
They will also now employ every means at their disposal to locate the units. It won’t be easy at first. These are small, highly mobile trucks. But it will become easier the more the units are used. They will expose themselves. Expect the Russian MoD to soon report having destroyed additional units.

In any case, there is no reason to conclude Russian ammunition stockpiles are dangerously depleted, or even that current production is falling meaningfully short of long-term sustainability requirements.
In short, it is pure delusion to believe a dozen HIMARS units will alter the trajectory of this war. Again: it is a six-shot highly mobile rocket system, with an extremely modest and finite ammunition stockpile.
If all 12 units fired just ONE salvo a day, they would exhaust over 1000 rockets in less than two weeks.
Some will be located and destroyed within days; most within weeks. Some of their ammo will be located and destroyed. Then what? Send more? If I recall correctly, the total US inventory is about 400 HIMARS units. ALL of them and more would be required to produce a meaningful impact in Ukraine.
The US military is not built nor equipped for protracted high-intensity conflict. Nor can it supply a depleted proxy army with the means to prosecute a protracted high-intensity conflict.
The Pentagon has already significantly depleted its inventories of ATGMs, MANPADs, and artillery pieces – all without appreciable effect.
Is it now the US strategy to disarm itself in a futile attempt to turn the tide in Ukraine?
Are they prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian AND the last pallet of American artillery ammunition?
If so, I suspect the Russian high command is more than willing for the US to continue on this path.
 

Master Chief

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2022
Messages
872
Likes
2,980
Country flag
That's not completely true. The Sudetenland wanted to join Germany, because they spoke German. Then Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia without firing a shot. I personally have nothing but empathy towards Chamberlain. Can you blame a guy who was trying to avoid the horrors of another world war? In the end nothing and nobody could of prevented WW2. The horrible treaty of Versailles according to Gregory Bateson was the most important event of the 20th century. I found the same pattern after rereading this chapter. The US narrative is to "weaken Russia" which is the same as "punish Russia." This was exactly what the treaty of Versailles was designed to do..."punish Germany" Will we ever learn?
From Versailles to Cybernetics* I have to talk about recent history as it appears to me in my generation and to you in yours and, as I flew in this morning, words began to echo in my mind. These were phrases more thunderous than any I might be able to compose. One of these groups of words was, "The fathers have eaten bitter fruit and the children's teeth are set on edge." Another was the statement of Joyce that "history is that nightmare from which there is no awakening." Another was, "The sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children even to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me." And lastly, not so immediately relevant, but still I think relevant to the problem of social mechanism, "He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars. General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer." We are talking about serious things. I call this lecture "From Versailles to Cybernetics," naming the two historic events of the twentieth century. The word "cybernetics" is familiar, is it not? But how many of you know what happened at Versailles in 1919? The question is, What is going to count as important in the history of the last sixty years? I am sixty-two, and, as I began to think about what I have seen of history in my lifetime, it seemed to me that I had really only seen two moments that would rate as really important from an anthropologist's point of view. One was the events leading up to the Treaty of Versailles, and the other was the cybernetic breakthrough. You may be surprised or shocked that I have not mentioned the A-bomb, or even World War II. I have not mentioned the spread of the automobile, nor of the radio and TV, nor many other things that have occurred in the last sixty years. Let me state my criterion of historical importance: Mammals in general, and we among them, care extremely, not about episodes, but about the patterns of their relation-ships. When you open the refrigerator door and the cat comes up and makes * Previously unpublished. This lecture was given April 21, 1966, to the "Two Worlds Symposium" at Sacramento State College. 475 certain sounds, she is not talking about liver or milk, though you may know very well that that is what she wants. You may be able to guess correctly and give her that—if there is any in the refrigerator. What she actually says is something about the relationship between her-self and you. If you translated her message into words, it would be something like, "dependency, dependency, dependency." She is talking, in fact, about a rather abstract pat-tern within a relationship. From that assertion of a pattern, you are expected to go from the general to the specific—to deduce "milk" or "liver." This is crucial. This is what mammals are about. They are concerned with patterns of relationship, with where they stand in love, hate, respect, dependency, trust, and similar abstractions, vis-àvis somebody else. This is where it hurts us to be put in the wrong. If we trust and find that that which we have trusted was untrustworthy; or if we distrust, and find that that which we distrusted was in fact trust-worthy, we feel bad. The pain that human beings and all other mammals can suffer from this type of error is extreme. If, therefore, we really want to know what are the significant points in history, we have to ask which are the moments in history when attitudes were changed. These are the moments when people are hurt because of their former "values." Think of the house thermostat in your home. The weather changes outdoors, the temperature of the room falls, the thermometer switch in the living room goes through its business and switches on the furnace; and the furnace warms the room and when the room is hot, the thermometer switch turns it off again. The system is what is called a homeostatic circuit or a servocircuit. But there is also a little box in the living room on the wall by which you set the thermostat. If the house has been too cold for the last week, you must move it up from its present setting to make the system now oscillate around a new level. No amount of weather, heat or cold or whatever, will change that setting, which is called the "bias" of the system. The temperature of the house will oscillate, it will get hotter and cooler according to various circumstances, but the setting of the mechanism will not be changed by those changes. But when you go and you move that bias, you will change what we may call the "attitude" of the system. 476 Similarly, the important question about history is: Has the bias or setting been changed? The episodic working out of events under a single stationary setting is really trivial. It is with this thought in mind that I have said that the two most important historic events in my life were the Treaty of Versailles and the discovery of cybernetics. Most of you probably hardly know how the Treaty of Versailles came into being. The story is very simple. World War I dragged on and on; the Germans were rather obviously losing. At this point, George Creel, a public relations man—and I want you not to forget that this man was a granddaddy of modern public relations—had an idea: the idea was that maybe the Germans would surrender if we offered them soft armistice terms. He therefore drew up a set of soft terms, according to which there would be no punitive measures. These terms were drawn up in fourteen points. These Fourteen Points he passed on to President Wilson. If you are going to deceive somebody, you had better get an honest man to carry the message. President Wilson was an almost pathologically honest man and a humanitarian. He elaborated the points in a number of speeches: there were to be "no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages ..." and so on. And the Germans surrendered. We, British and Americans specially the British—continued of course to blockade Germany because we didn't want them to get uppity before the Treaty was signed. So, for another year, they continued to starve. The Peace Conference has been vividly described by aynard Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919). The Treaty was finally drawn up by four men: Clemenceau, "the tiger," who wanted to crush Germany; Lloyd George, who felt it would be politically expedient to get a lot of reparations out of Germany, and some revenge; and Wilson, who had to be bamboozled along. Whenever Wilson would wonder about those Fourteen Points of his, they took him out into the war cemeteries and made him feel ashamed of not being angry with the Germans. Who was the other? Orlando was the other, an Italian. This was one of the great sellouts in the history of our civilization. A most extraordinary event which led fairly directly and inevitably into World War II. It also led (and this is perhaps more 477 interesting than the fact of its leading to World War II) to the total demoralization of German politics. If you promise your boy something, and renege on him, framing the whole thing on a high ethical plane, you will probably find that not only is he very angry with you, but that his moral attitudes deteriorate as long as he feels the unfair whiplash of what you are doing to him. It's not only that World War II was the appropriate response of a nation which had been treated in this particular way; what is more important is the fact that the demoralization of that nation was expectable from this sort of treatment. From the demoralization of Germany, we, too, became demoralized. This is why I say that the Treaty of Versailles was an attitudinal turning point. I imagine that we have another couple of generations of aftereffects from that particular sellout to work through. We are, in fact, like members of the house of Atreus in Greek tragedy. First there was Thyestes' adultery, then Atreus' killing of Thyestes' three children, whom he served to Thyestes at a peace-making feast. Then the murder of Atreus' son, Agamemnon, by Thyestes' son, Aegistheus; and finally the murder of Aegistheus and Clytemnestra by Orestes. It goes on and on. The tragedy of oscillating and self-propagating distrust, hate, and destruction down the generations. I want you to imagine that you come into the middle of one of these sequences of tragedy. How is it for the middle generation of the house of Atreus? They are living in acrazy universe. From the point of view of the people who started the mess, it's not so crazy; they know what happened and how they got there. But the people down the line, who were not there at the beginning, find themselves living in a crazy universe, and find themselves crazy, precisely because they do not know how they got that way. To take a dose of LSD is all right, and you will have the experience of being more or less crazy, but this will make quite good sense because you know you took the dose of LSD. If, on the other hand, you took the LSD by accident, and then find yourself going crazy, not knowing how you got there, this is a terrifying and horrible experience. This is a much more serious and terrible experience, very different from the trip which you can enjoy if you know you took the LSD. 478 Now consider the difference between my generation and you who are under twenty-five. We all live in the same crazy universe whose hate, distrust, and hypocrisy relates back (especially at the international level)' to the Fourteen Points and the Treaty of Versailles. We older ones know how we got here. I can remember my father reading the Fourteen Points at the breakfast table and saying, "By golly, they're going to give them a decent armistice, a decent peace," or something of the kind. And I can remember, but I will not attempt to verbalize, the sort of thing he said when the Treaty of Versailles came out. It wasn't printable. So I know more or less how we got here. But from your point of view, we are absolutely crazy, and you don't know what sort of historic event led to this craziness. "The fathers have eaten bitter fruit and the children's teeth are set on edge." It's all very well for the fathers, they know what they ate. The children don't know what was eaten. Let us consider what is to be expected of people in the aftermath of a major deception. Previous to World War 1, it was generally assumed that compromise and a little hypocrisy are a very important ingredient in the ordinary comfortableness of life. If you read Samuel Butler's Erewhon Revisited, for example, you will see what I mean. All the principal characters in the novel have got themselves into an awful mess: some are due to be executed, and others are due for public scandal, and the religious system of the nation is threatened with collapse. These disasters and tangles are smoothed out by Mrs. Ydgrun (or, as we would say, "Mrs. Grundy " ), the guardian of Erewhonian morals. She carefully reconstructs history, like a jigsaw puzzle, so that nobody is really hurt and nobody is disgraced—still less is anybody executed. This was a very comfortable philosophy. A little hypocrisy and a little compromise oil the wheels of social life. But after the great deception, this philosophy is untenable. You are perfectly correct that something is wrong; and that the something wrong is of the nature of a deceit and a hypocrisy. You live in the midst of corruption. Of course, your natural responses are puritanical. Not sexual puritanism, because it is not a sexual deceit that lies in the 479 background. But an extreme puritanism against compromise, a puritanism against hypocrisy, and this ends up as a reduction of life to little pieces. It is the big integrated structures of life that seem to have carried the lunacy, and so you try to focus down on the smallest things. "He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars. General Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer." The general good smells of hypocrisy to the rising generation. I don't doubt that if you asked George Creel to justify the Fourteen Points, he would urge the general good. It is possible that that little operation of his saved a few thousand American lives in 1918. I don't know how many it cost in World War II, and since in Korea and Vietnam. I recall that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified by the general good and saving American lives. There was a lot of talk about " unconditional surrender," perhaps because we could - not trust ourselves to honor a conditional armistice. Was the fate of Hiroshima determined at Versailles? Now I want to talk about the other significant historical event which has happened in my lifetime, approximately in 1946-47. This was the growing together of a number of ideas which had developed in different places during World War II. We may call the aggregate of these ideas cybernetics, or communication theory, or information theory, or systems theory. The ideas were generated in many places: in Vienna by Bertalanffy, in Harvard by Wiener, in Princeton by von Neumann, in Bell Telephone labs by Shannon, in Cambridge by raik, and so on. All these separate developments in different intellectual centers dealt with communicational problems, especially with the problem of what sort of a thing is an organized system. You will notice that everything I said about history and about Versailles is a discussion of organized systems and their properties. Now I want to say that we are developing a certain amount of rigorous scientific understanding of these very mysterious organized systems. Our knowledge today is way ahead of anything that George Creel could have said. He was an applied scientist before the science was ripe to be applied. One of the roots of cybernetics goes back to Whitehead and Russell and what is called the Theory of Logical Types. In principle, 480 the name is not the thing named, and the name of the name is not the name, and so on. In terms of this powerful theory, a message about war is not part of the war. Let me put it this way: the message "Let's play chess" is not a move in the game of chess. It is a message in a more abstract language than the language of the game on the board. The message "Let's make peace on such and such terms" is not within the same ethical system as the deceits and tricks of battle. They say that all is fair in love and war, and that may be true within love and war, but outside and about love and war, the ethics are a little different. Men have felt for centuries that treachery in a truce or peace-making is worse than trickery in battle. Today this ethical principle receives rigorous theoretical and scientific support. The ethics can now be looked at with formality, rigor, logic, mathematics, and all that, and stands on a different sort of basis from mere invocational preachments. We do not have to feel our way; we can sometimes know right from wrong. I included cybernetics as the second historic event of importance in my lifetime because I have at least a dim hope that we can bring ourselves to use this new understanding with some honesty. If we understand a little bit of what were doing, maybe it will help us to find our way out of the maze of hallucinations that we have created around our-selves. Cybernetics is, at any rate, a contribution to change—not simply a change in attitude, but even a change in the under-standing of what an attitude is. The stance that I have taken in choosing what is important in history—saying that the important things are the moments at which attitude is determined, the moments at which the bias of the thermostat is changed—this stance is derived directly from cybernetics. These are thoughts shaped by events from 1946 and after. But pigs do not go around ready-roasted. We now have a lot of cybernetics, a lot of games theory, and the beginnings of understanding of complex systems. But any understanding can be used in destructive ways. I think that cybernetics is the biggest bite out of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge that mankind has taken in the last 2000 years. 481 But most of such bites out of the apple have proved to be rather indigestible—usually for cybernetic reasons. Cybernetics has integrity within itself, to help us to not be seduced by it into more lunacy, but we cannot trust it to keep us from sin. For example, the state departments of several nations are today using games theory, backed up by computers, as a way of deciding international policy. They identify first what seem to be the rules of the game of international interaction; they then consider the distribution of strength, weapons, strategic points, grievances, etc., over the geography and the identified nations. They then ask the computers to compute what should be our next move to minimize the chances of our losing the game. The computer then cranks and heaves and gives an answer, and there is some temptation to obey the computer. After all, if you follow the computer you are a little lessresponsible than if you made up your own mind. But if you do what the computer advises, you assert by that move that you support the rules of the game which you fed into the computer. You have affirmed the rules of that game. No doubt nations of the other side also have computers and are playing similar games, and are affirming the rules of the game that they are feeding to their computers. The result is a system in which the rules of international interaction become more and more rigid. I submit to you that what is wrong with the international field is that the rules need changing. The question is not that is the best thing to do within the rules as they are at the moment. The question is how can we get away from the rules within which we have been operating for the last ten or twenty years, or since the Treaty of Versailles. The problem is to change the rules, and insofar as we let our cybernetic inventions—the computers—lead us into more and more rigid situations, we shall in fact be maltreating and abusing the first hopeful advance since 1918. And, of course, there are other dangers latent in cybernetics and many of these are still unidentified. We do not know, for example, what effects may follow from the computerization of all government dossiers. But this much is sure, that there is also latent in cybernetics the means of achieving a new and perhaps more human outlook, a 482 means of changing our philosophy of control and a means of seeing our own follies in wider perspective.
Who is the Author.. Looks like Some cybernetics fellow..
 

ww2historian

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2022
Messages
995
Likes
3,185
Country flag
Who is the Author.. Looks like Some cybernetics fellow..
Gregory Bateson, it's a chapter from "steps to an ecology of mind" written in 1972. I don't know if you've ever heard of Neuro linguistic programming, but Bateson had a huge influence on the developers of this cybernetic science or epistemology. Tony Robbins is probably the most famous NLPer in the world.
1660491241469.png
 

Master Chief

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2022
Messages
872
Likes
2,980
Country flag
This guy on twitter is providing excellent info. The HIMARS are not a game changer, just like the M777. If they were, why is Ukraine losing so bad on the battlefield? Losing Pesky is so significant, that it will cause a total collapse of the Donbas in a few weeks.
While losing Pesky is significant.. UKRAINE will not lose Donetsk in a few weeks.. In fact it will take a few months for Ukraine to lose all of Donetsk, unless Russia significantly steps up the number of troops....

The US military is not built nor equipped for protracted high-intensity conflict. Nor can it supply a depleted proxy army with the means to prosecute a protracted high-intensity conflict.
This is true..Unlike the US military at the end of the cold war, US military and more importantly US military industrial complex today is not geared towards high intensity conflict. If you remember even until a year ago, the idea of prolonged high intensity conflict between near peer nuclear rivals was considered to be impossible by western think tankers.. US military industrial base atrophied over the past 30 years through lack of orders, relentles consolidation and embrace of Just in time mentality, which removed surge capacity.. While Russia is not as formidable as the Soviet Union, and Russia lost a lot of military industrial capacity after the collapse of Soviet Union, it has rebuilt capacities in some sectors over the past couple of decades..
Now the war in Ukraine has woken up US to the prospect of industrial high intensity warfare with near peer nuclear powers. And there is nothing better than war, to bring out deficiencies in US production capabilities of 20th century mainstay weapons like Artillery, Rocket launchers and associated ammunition..
So, US in the coming years will reorient its own and those of its allies' Industries towards industrial warfare. But, that will be too late for Ukraine..
 
Last edited:

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
4,690
Likes
9,250
Himars round is around USD 160,000 but new rounds plus their transportation can be USD 200,000 per round. Assuming accuracy of 25-75m, a salvo of 3-6 rockets will be required for any point target. Somehow it seems pictures of Russian Tornado & Smerch have decreased, has Russia run out?
As a war economy, Russian costs of guided Tornado might be 1/4th of USA.
GMLRS variant of HIMARS has CEP of < 10 m for 90% of strikes.
Latest variant of GMLRS has CEP of 1-3 m for 99% of strikes.
These latest variants were suppose to be employed during strike on the bridge on the dam at Nova Kakhovka.

The reason Tornado & Smerch usage is reduced due to HIMARS destroying lot of ammunition storage and Russian inability to manufacture smart rounds due to unavailability of electronics and semiconductors.

Russian cost appear low because the manipulate the supply chain and artificial deflate the cost of material.
As Russia handle everything from raw material extraction to manufacturing of final product they can manipulate the system.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
1,563
Likes
5,055
Country flag
GMLRS variant of HIMARS has CEP of < 10 m for 90% of strikes.
Latest variant of GMLRS has CEP of 1-3 m for 99% of strikes.
These latest variants were suppose to be employed during strike on the bridge on the dam at Nova Kakhovka.

The reason Tornado & Smerch usage is reduced due to HIMARS destroying lot of ammunition storage and Russian inability to manufacture smart rounds due to unavailability of electronics and semiconductors.

Russian cost appear low because the manipulate the supply chain and artificial deflate the cost of material.
As Russia handle everything from raw material extraction to manufacturing of final product they can manipulate the system.
The russian cost is a lot lower for the same reason it costs a lot less to make a T-shirt in bangladesh than in USA : value of currency & thus labour cost inputs being FAR lower in Russia than in the west.
This is not manipulation of economics, this is basic macroeconomics.
 

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
4,690
Likes
9,250
This guy on twitter is providing excellent info. The HIMARS are not a game changer, just like the M777. If they were, why is Ukraine losing so bad on the battlefield? Losing Pesky is so significant, that it will cause a total collapse of the Donbas in a few weeks.
Donbas is the perfect terrain for Russians doctrine.
Russian should have steam rolled the Ukrainians with massive armored thrust.
Yet the invasion has slowed down to crawling pace.
Their is no such thing as wonder weapons but HIMARS, M777 and Javelin have managed to slow down Russia by inflicting severe damage and casualties.
 

GaudaNaresh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2022
Messages
1,563
Likes
5,055
Country flag
Donbas is the perfect terrain for Russians doctrine.
Russian should have steam rolled the Ukrainians with massive armored thrust.
Yet the invasion has slowed down to crawling pace.
Their is no such thing as wonder weapons but HIMARS, M777 and Javelin have managed to slow down Russia by inflicting severe damage and casualties.
why ? What makes you think Russia should've done this ? On what rationale ?
 

Dark Sorrow

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
4,690
Likes
9,250
The russian cost is a lot lower for the same reason it costs a lot less to make a T-shirt in bangladesh than in USA : value of currency & thus labour cost inputs being FAR lower in Russia than in the west.
This is not manipulation of economics, this is basic macroeconomics.
Raw material cost, fuel and energy cost are being manipulated by Russians to keep the cost down on paper.
They are severely undercharging for these materials when the sell to Russian armed forces. The can do this because all is owned by state enterprises.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top