On Nov 8, 5:25 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's not even controversial. Put it in Google and you'll see.
My God, man: do you understand the difference between "history" and
"google"????
> Are you biased against Google too?
No, just that there's a difference between "history" and "google."
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...krieg_01.shtml
Andrzej, we're talking about Poland being blitzed. Nowhere in that
article does it mention that Poland wasn't blitzed. Only on page four
do they state that the Germans didn't invent blitzkrieg, though the
word itself is German.
Again, we're not talking about whether the Germans invented combined
arms operations (blitzkrieg), we're talking about whether Poland was
subject to it.
It was.
> The Roots of Blitzkrieg: Hans von Seeckt and German Military Reform by
> James S Corum (University Press of Kansas, 1992)
>
> The Path to Blitzkrieg: Doctrine and Training in the German Army,
> 1920-1939 by Robert M Citino (Lynne Reinner, 1999)
>
> Germany and World War Two, Vol. II: Germany's Initial Conquests in
> Europe by German Research Institute for Military History (Clarendon
> Press, 1991)
>
> Storm of Steel: The Development of Armor Doctrine in Germany and the
> Soviet Union, 1919- 1939 by Mary B Habeck (Cornell University Press,
> 2003)
Lazy, lazy...you pull up some books from a google search and claim
them as the basis for your contention that Poland wasn't blitzed??
Come on, man.
> Nonsense. I don't claim we could win anything. I simply expect, that
> German loses would be higher.
You said German losses *were* higher *after* the shooting stopped. I
don't know what you mean by "higher," and I certainly don't know how
you think they could be higher after the shooting stopped....
> But nobody did train properly. In Europe there were no regular armies
> at this time.
Depends on what you mean by a "regular" army...the Mongols and Huns
probably weren't "regular" too, in the sense of a professional warrior
caste dedicated to war -- as opposed to herding sheep.
> Of course. It was actual training which made them good.
Well, I agree with the general statement that all else being equal,
training is what makes the difference, yes.
> Go on and write, then. There is a chance that you'll actually read
> this article before trying to fix it.
Why write? I'm not going to get in a contest with someone, editing
and re-editing wikipedia entries...the history books are out there.
> Romans didn't oppress Jews.
LMAO!!
Dude, you're so good with google, try researching "Jewish
Diaspora"...how do you think Jews wound up in Spain, India, China?
Not all of them were traveling traders....
> Claudius (iirc) banned them from Rome
> because they were prone to fighting for such a trifle like religious
> matters.
Claudius had a close friend in King Herod, IIRC, though he later rose
up against Roman authority because his fellow Jews were revolting and,
like any politician, he goes with the majority! But I did not know
that Claudius had any particular sentiment against Jews
specifically....
> Christians were truly oppressed, but Christians weren't a
> conquered nation.
The question, I remind you, was what did the Romans do to whom, not
whether their victims were nations or religions or cultures.
> They were Romans, for the most part.
Christians were just Jews at first. It never occurred to them that
they were "Christians" until the Jews were grossly outnumbered by
Greeks and Romans in later years.
> True examples of Roman religious oppressions were Carthaginians and
> Celts.
?!?!
Those are precisely NOT examples of Roman religious persecution --
those were simple wars of conquest, man!
Andrezj, with all due respect, I don't think your History 101 is up to
snuff....
> Both used to make human sacrifices and Roman religious tolerance
> obviously didn't stretch that far.
Um, the gladiatorial games started out as religious sacrifices at
funerals....
I'm sure some Roman propagandist like Virgil later made up a casus
bellum such as you believe, but that's not why those wars were fought.
> As I'm with Celts, Cesar sold one
> tribe into slavery, but it was a punishment for revolt, and he deliberately
> destroyed them to make an example.
Yes, and that was standard practice back then.
> Never. Not me.
>
> [Your dog will yip for your sins.]
I'm going to tell your teacher what you've been saying in MFW about
Romans, Mongols, Germans, and my dog!!!
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R 
Re: For one particular "lurker"... 
Linear Mode
