posted
so there's 2 people, T and W, I dont remember how it happened but we got into a discussion about WWII. However, eventually I argue that the Invasion of Normandy was negligible overall considering that in MHO the war was fought and won on the eastern front, 80% of Germany's strength was devoted to it, and with the battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad and finally the liberation of belorus and the rush to Warsaw all sapped and eventually crushed the Germany army in the east. the remaining 20% would hardly have made a difference considering that alot of the troops in Normany were either auxileries and resevres, and the remainder was doing occupation work or fighting in North Africa.
My conclusionwas that Normandy's only effect was to speed up the war by months, it did not decisevly win the war.
The problem is that while I stated this and held my ground I was badgered, since they were sitting to my left and right and I was eating at the same time, so it completely stressed me out.
I hate being badgered and another friend J recognized it and called it "Your siting to his both sides and badgering him".
posted
Maybe it wasn't necessary from the military standpoint of defeating Germany, but from the political and ideological standpoint of stopping the USSR from taking over Europe, it was very necessary. Cracking fortress Germany from France was a bigger morale booster and probably more effective than it would have been to invade from Italy, and it needed to be done quickly so they'd meet Russia in the middle of Europe, not in the West of Europe.
Militarily, the invasion of Italy had far more to do with the defeat of Germany than Operation Overlord did.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem is that while I stated this and held my ground I was badgered, since they were sitting to my left and right and I was eating at the same time, so it completely stressed me out.
Blayne, you're allowed to change the subject.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
A very wise Chinese person once wrote "the strongest reed still bends in the wind."
You've got to pick your battles. And it's not worth stressing out over some silly historical what-if thing at lunch; even if you had won the argument conclusively, what good would that have done you or your friends?
It turns out that securing a young tree against the wind does it a disservice; bending and swaying in the breeze actually strengthens its trunk, helping it grow faster AND stronger. In the same way, learning to let an issue drop will actually make you better at debating the things which matter, and will save your emotional capital for the things it's healthy for you to care about.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didnt want to change the topic, I didnt wanna run away from it. No surrender! No Retreat!
It sounds like you wanted them to surrender instead.
I am not surprised that they didn't.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If I backed out of the arguement (the 2 badgering me werent nessasarily friends just people I know and are rather disrespectful at times), then they would assume that I "lost" the arguement and would quite possibly snidly mention it at unexpected moments.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
to Mr Porteiro, "In total war the only rational aim is victory, the only cause is Nationalism, as the final and ultimate instrument of state, so in the end, total war is and has to be, rational, national, and instrumental." Clauswitz, Vom Krieg, On War.
IP: Logged |
posted
Lunchroom conversations are not -- and should not be -- total war. I think there are healthier perspectives.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Clausewitz on total war is relevant to an ephemeral lunch-hour discussion in what way, exactly?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
He's good referance material. Besides its college and we were all in the club room I joined the conversation and it eventually turned into that, about Normandy and its effect on the war, I gave my view and I defended it. They patronized it so I dug my foxhole and held every inch of ground.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Now I full well know the moral and political effects of Normandy, however I never like mixing politics and war for forgoeing military adjectives for political ones instead is simly not a good idea. War is not an extension of politics, just politics by other means.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: to Mr Porteiro, "In total war the only rational aim is victory, the only cause is Nationalism, as the final and ultimate instrument of state, so in the end, total war is and has to be, rational, national, and instrumental." Clauswitz, Vom Krieg, On War.
If you consider conversations with friends as "total war", then you are probably not very interesting or enjoyable to talk with.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the phrase that I wanted them to surrender instead of me is what Im refering to, in any discussion where two views clash the fight is between whose view is more "correct" or right or the truth. Philosohpically any thing remotely similar to war can only be fought as total war, anything less is "treason".
I had my view, I defended it, and I felt I was right based on the historicalo evidence at my desposal. The point was to determine whose was right, the thing was though they didnt both to refute my claim, they simply nitpicked or talked about "how many battles happened" or "how many died".
My claim was that the second world war was won and lost in the East. And that the west only served to shorten it, they were condenscending and were badgering me talking quickly and moving on quickly barely giving me the chance to think and others defended me.
Nitpicking about my personality however is really beginning to piss me off.
IP: Logged |
quote: in any discussion where two views clash the fight is between whose view is more "correct" or right or the truth. Philosohpically any thing remotely similar to war can only be fought as total war, anything less is "treason"....The point was to determine whose was right.
Blayne, you realize this was a friendly chat over a sandwich and cuppa, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually I just happened to be in the room eating with other people, then it turned into a discussion about wwii, I said my view they were disparing of it and I react badly when people look down on me. And the more I'm badgered the more stressed I get and the more stressed the more aggressively i deal with it, I cant help it, applies to certain online discussions.
And, I was eating a Subway with a 2 litter bottle of coke cola.
IP: Logged |
posted
So if you really think you should fight an argument as a total war, how come you didn't go for a knife and carve those two up until they admitted you were right? Final argument of kings, don'tcherknow.
Seriously, you have plainly not read all of Clausewitz, only the bits that are commonly quoted. He has a whole chapter on the limitations of total war, foremost among them being that some goals are just not worth that kind of all-out effort, especially since the enemy will naturally match his effort to yours. Only when the independence of nations is at stake does one conscript the entire population; in fighting for a single province, the regular army will do nicely.
And if you do not wish to be disparaged, it would be really helpful if you did not come across as a desperate geek with a head full of wargames.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the more I'm badgered the more stressed I get and the more stressed the more aggressively i deal with it, I cant help it, applies to certain online discussions.
That's my point, Blayne. You CAN help it. And you should practice it, so that you get good at it, because it's a far more useful skill than an encyclopedic knowledge of WWII history.
Seriously. Learning how to engage people in conversation without feeling like you have to "win" -- and learning how to disengage from a subject when it's making you unhappy, even if it means conceding the issue -- are major life lessons. They're hard lessons, too; I haven't mastered them myself, and most of the adults I know still struggle with them sometimes. But they're worth the effort.
Why? Because if you hate being badgered, there are two things you can do about it: 1) prevent people from badgering you; 2) avoid hating it when it happens. Of those two options, the first is impossible.
But I get the hints you've been dropping, so I'll drop this line of criticism. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:in any discussion where two views clash the fight is between whose view is more "correct" or right or the truth. Philosohpically any thing remotely similar to war can only be fought as total war, anything less is "treason".
See, I disagree. First of all, you put too much stock in the assumption that in any given discussion, one side will have the right of it and one side will be wrong. You leave no option for discussions where no one is right, or discussions where both sides are partially correct and would best be served by resolving the discussion with a more complete picture formed by the combination of both views. Nothing on earth is as black and white as you are painting it.
Secondly, even actual war should not always be fought as total war. I agree that committing to war without putting forth the effort necessary to win is a horrible mistake. But it's not always necessary to give it everything you've got just to win, and in the cases where it isn't, it's wasteful and dangerous to give it everything you've got anyway.
Thirdly, it's just not pleasant trying to have discussions with people who view every discussion as a war that they must win at any cost. I prefer talking to people who aren't going to view me as an enemy to be beaten down and destroyed, even if we are taking opposite sides of an issue.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I get into a lot of conversations that dont end up as a war zone, usually involving videogames.
Its usually only when I feel threatened either by being insulted or disrespected that I get aggressive in defending my beliefs. I dont treat every conversation where the final result is me winning, only when theres soemthing at stake.
IP: Logged |
posted
But what was at stake here? Your getting to eat your lunch in peace? Because it occurs to me that letting it go would have been more conducive to that end.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
These 2 people are always under the impression that I know little about WWII, when in fact I'm very knoweldgeable about wwii and a history buff, I felt proving to them otherwise was important.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give an example of why Tom's advice is good. I am tempted to get into an argument with you about why you're wrong about the Normandy invasion, but I am quite certain that after a week of discussing it, neither of us will be persuaded, and I will be irritated.
So I refrain from doing so, to spare myself needless and useless irritation. As for your...militant approach to conversation, there are better places for that sort of attitude. Such as the military. If you want to act like a soldier or a general, go be one. You shouldn't try to wear the uniform and put on airs otherwise.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The oak stands against the wind and is broken. The willow bends and multiplies until one day it is many willows: a wall against the wind." -Frank Herbert
I say let them have their impressions, it affects you little. Of course anyone who knows me knows that I only back down in the face of stupidity too overwhelming to defeat, so I will now point at myself and call myself a hypocrit.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:These 2 people are always under the impression that I know little about WWII, when in fact I'm very knoweldgeable about wwii and a history buff, I felt proving to them otherwise was important.
It seems to me you had two options:
1) Back down, letting them think they are right, but safeguarding your emotional well being.
2) Don't back donw. Fight to the end, pissing yourself off and getting frustrated. And yet they still think they are right.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Rakeesh, and won't get into a discussion with you about Normandy for the same reasons.
But I do have to say, that it can be entertaining at times to badger someone who takes themselves wayyyy too seriously. You strike me as one of those favored badgering targets.
quote:That's my point, Blayne. You CAN help it. And you should practice it, so that you get good at it, because it's a far more useful skill than an encyclopedic knowledge of WWII history.
Seriously. Learning how to engage people in conversation without feeling like you have to "win" -- and learning how to disengage from a subject when it's making you unhappy, even if it means conceding the issue -- are major life lessons. They're hard lessons, too; I haven't mastered them myself, and most of the adults I know still struggle with them sometimes. But they're worth the effort.
Why? Because if you hate being badgered, there are two things you can do about it: 1) prevent people from badgering you; 2) avoid hating it when it happens. Of those two options, the first is impossible.
posted
On plastic.com they have a thing going right now where people are discufssing whether or not soldiers, soldiers who have been through war, make the best presidents, because they get that war is hell, and are more dove-ish than those who have never experienced war.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: But I do have to say, that it can be entertaining at times to badger someone who takes themselves wayyyy too seriously. You strike me as one of those favored badgering targets.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
@ BadgetBadgerBadger
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
