Jump to content


M4 Sherman "The Right Tank for the Wrong War"

M4 Sherman

  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

Klaatu_Nicto #81 Posted Sep 18 2017 - 20:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 43961 battles
  • 7,311
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostIe_Shima, on Sep 18 2017 - 11:31, said:

 

​I stand corrected, but you should at least edit your original post to show that, while the speech was from a true recipient of two MoH, the man giving the speech is not.  

 

I did edit it right after I posted it but not good enough I guess. :facepalm:

 

Originally I wrote "Two time Medal Of Honor recipient speaks about war" but didn't want to mislead people into thinking that was Butler.

 

I'll do a better edit this time.


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Sep 18 2017 - 20:48.


BillT #82 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 18:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 24813 battles
  • 2,045
  • [FADES] FADES
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Sep 16 2017 - 14:17, said:

 One might even say ww2 was never really won because it just morphed into a long series of wars and conflicts that rage unbroken to this day.

 

Though to that, I would point out that NONE of the wars since then have involved Germany, Japan, or Italy.  Since the goal of WWII was to eliminate the threat from those nations, I have to call that a victory.

 

To your greater thesis... instead of saying "WWII was never won", you could say that about WWI, or the Franco-Prussian War,  or the Napoleonic Wars, all the way back to the failure of the Roman conquest of Europe to unify the whole continent.  It's more sensible just to say that wars never end, and there's always an excuse for another one.

 

But even there we're making progress.  Humanity is becoming measurably less violent, even within the 20th century (and despite the two world wars). An excellent resource on this is Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" which presents a compelling and uplifting view of the progress of human culture.



Kenshin2kx #83 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 18:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16050 battles
  • 4,734
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostBillT, on Sep 19 2017 - 07:09, said:

 

Though to that, I would point out that NONE of the wars since then have involved Germany, Japan, or Italy.  Since the goal of WWII was to eliminate the threat from those nations, I have to call that a victory.

 

To your greater thesis... instead of saying "WWII was never won", you could say that about WWI, or the Franco-Prussian War,  or the Napoleonic Wars, all the way back to the failure of the Roman conquest of Europe to unify the whole continent.  It's more sensible just to say that wars never end, and there's always an excuse for another one.

 

But even there we're making progress.  Humanity is becoming measurably less violent, even within the 20th century (and despite the two world wars). An excellent resource on this is Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" which presents a compelling and uplifting view of the progress of human culture.

 

... sounds like a good read.  :great:



Klaatu_Nicto #84 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 18:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 43961 battles
  • 7,311
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

I first heard of Pinker's book earlier this year on Micheal Medved's radio show.

 



Ie_Shima #85 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 19:13

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2732 battles
  • 245
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016

View PostBillT, on Sep 19 2017 - 18:09, said:

 

But even there we're making progress.  Humanity is becoming measurably less violent, even within the 20th century (and despite the two world wars). An excellent resource on this is Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" which presents a compelling and uplifting view of the progress of human culture.

 

This, though very true, it is also misleading, as the more advanced humanity becomes in terms of war, the deadlier they can become.  I would contend that while we are becoming less violent, with the time between our 'great' wars stretching further and further the older we get as a species, the more destructive and deadly they become.  Look at the difference between WWI and WWII.  WWI was "mostly" contained to static fighting in the Benelux region of Europe, and with the exceptions of the Russian and Balkan fronts, pretty much stayed there.  All of the fighting was kept within one area, and while some of the destruction of the war spilled out of that area, it was mostly contained to one region, and only expanded when the front expanded.  

 

WWII covered the entire continent with destruction, wiping out entire cities.  A big step up from it's predecessor.  Now, any war between major powers will practically guarantee the use of nuclear weapons.  



Horribad_At_Tanks #86 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 19:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 5,658
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostBillT, on Sep 19 2017 - 12:09, said:

 

Though to that, I would point out that NONE of the wars since then have involved Germany, Japan, or Italy.  Since the goal of WWII was to eliminate the threat from those nations, I have to call that a victory.

 

To your greater thesis... instead of saying "WWII was never won", you could say that about WWI, or the Franco-Prussian War,  or the Napoleonic Wars, all the way back to the failure of the Roman conquest of Europe to unify the whole continent.  It's more sensible just to say that wars never end, and there's always an excuse for another one.

 

But even there we're making progress.  Humanity is becoming measurably less violent, even within the 20th century (and despite the two world wars). An excellent resource on this is Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" which presents a compelling and uplifting view of the progress of human culture.

 

I picked ww2 as the origin point because that was the first truly global war that effected near every nation on the planet in one form or another. Even brazil sent troops and conducted sea patrols after declaring for the allies when other south american nations still had cozy if clandestine relations with the germans. Almost all the current unrest across the globe has its roots in the chaos that followed ww2 when the entire world realigned politically into more or less three warring ideologies. The West. The East and growing Radical Islam. Before ww2 wars were all regional and had little effect on nations outside their immediate conflict past new alliances and trade partners etc culled from the winners and losers. Even ww1 was a european war and only was called a world war that because of the international contributions into the static trench warfare of the time. A few navy fights happened outside the main area of conflict but that was minor stuff that didn't involve the areas they fought in.

 

Also can't agree on things taking a turn for the better because certain nations have greatly advanced since ww2 and are more or less peaceful. Take africa for example. Near the entire continent is in flames due to the unrest the cold war started there with the kgb and the cia toppling governments to install pro east or west puppets then radical islam came along and turned it into a three way. The cold war that was the continuation of ww2 was 'cold' because we both had weapons that could glass the planet. If the atom bomb had never been invented and ww2 had ended with a conventional invasion of japan we would have ended up going to near immediate war with russia and eventually china instead of the long arms race to beat the nuclear ace card. So sure overall humanity has become less violent but the violence that is left is still horrific and just as barbaric as if it was the dark ages.

 

As to germany did they really lose or did the powers that wanted domination simply walk into the shadows waiting for a new day to dawn? Seems right this second certain powers in germany and italy are using millions of fighting age 'migrants' to destroy europe as a western culture and identity just as thoroughly as if they were all armed and shooting bullets. So yeah I stick by my analysis that ww2 is still being fought to this day. The alliances have shifted and morphed but the conflict that started then still rages on either by proxy or direct conflict.



Klaatu_Nicto #87 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 20:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 43961 battles
  • 7,311
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Sep 19 2017 - 10:26, said:

 

I picked ww2 as the origin point because that was the first truly global war that effected near every nation on the planet in one form or another. Even brazil sent troops and conducted sea patrols after declaring for the allies when other south american nations still had cozy if clandestine relations with the germans. Almost all the current unrest across the globe has its roots in the chaos that followed ww2 when the entire world realigned politically into more or less three warring ideologies. The West. The East and growing Radical Islam. Before ww2 wars were all regional and had little effect on nations outside their immediate conflict past new alliances and trade partners etc culled from the winners and losers. Even ww1 was a european war and only was called a world war that because of the international contributions into the static trench warfare of the time. A few navy fights happened outside the main area of conflict but that was minor stuff that didn't involve the areas they fought in.

 

Also can't agree on things taking a turn for the better because certain nations have greatly advanced since ww2 and are more or less peaceful. Take africa for example. Near the entire continent is in flames due to the unrest the cold war started there with the kgb and the cia toppling governments to install pro east or west puppets then radical islam came along and turned it into a three way. The cold war that was the continuation of ww2 was 'cold' because we both had weapons that could glass the planet. If the atom bomb had never been invented and ww2 had ended with a conventional invasion of japan we would have ended up going to near immediate war with russia and eventually china instead of the long arms race to beat the nuclear ace card. So sure overall humanity has become less violent but the violence that is left is still horrific and just as barbaric as if it was the dark ages.

 

As to germany did they really lose or did the powers that wanted domination simply walk into the shadows waiting for a new day to dawn? Seems right this second certain powers in germany and italy are using millions of fighting age 'migrants' to destroy europe as a western culture and identity just as thoroughly as if they were all armed and shooting bullets. So yeah I stick by my analysis that ww2 is still being fought to this day. The alliances have shifted and morphed but the conflict that started then still rages on either by proxy or direct conflict.

 

According to Sumner Wells (major foreign policy adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and served as Under Secretary of State from 1936 to 1943), in his book A Time For Decision, WW2 is still being fought and my belief is the U.S. is not winning.  In his book Wells writes about what the Allies are learning late in the war from captured high ranking German officers and how Germany plans on continuing the intellectual war after Germany's military war is lost.

 

 

 

"It is a sin to study the agony of a continent of victims and end up offering as explanation the intellectual equivalent of a drugstore nostrum, or worse, end up preaching, as antitode, an essential tenet of the murderers.  It is a sin and a portent.  The battle against Nazism has not yet been won.  It is true that we must remember the Holocaust. But what we must remember above everything else, and eradicate, is its cause." - Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, c1982.

 

 



Ikanator #88 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 20:13

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7864 battles
  • 440
  • Member since:
    06-23-2016

Clausewitz, ON WAR, Book one, chapter one, section 9

 

"Lastly, even the ultimate outcome of a war is not always to be regarded as final. The defeated state often considers the outcome merely as a transitory evil, for which a remedy may still be found in political conditions at some later date."



BillT #89 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 21:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 24813 battles
  • 2,045
  • [FADES] FADES
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on Sep 19 2017 - 12:29, said:

I first heard of Pinker's book earlier this year on Micheal Medved's radio show.

 

Thanks for finding and posting that video!



Horribad_At_Tanks #90 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 22:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 5,658
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

Since we are educating the lurkers might as well toss this one in too.

 

https://mises.org/si...ual Peace_2.pdf



BillT #91 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 22:15

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 24813 battles
  • 2,045
  • [FADES] FADES
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostIe_Shima, on Sep 19 2017 - 13:13, said:

 

This, though very true, it is also misleading, as the more advanced humanity becomes in terms of war, the deadlier they can become.  I would contend that while we are becoming less violent, with the time between our 'great' wars stretching further and further the older we get as a species, the more destructive and deadly they become. 

 

In absolute numbers, yes.  But then, the world's population is also rising fast.  Pinker's analysis is on a per capita basis, and the data says that a person living today is less likely to die from violence than at any time in our past. See the video Klaatu-Nicto posted, around the 5:40 mark for an example of what I'm saying.  In his book he has a thorough analysis of warfare itself.

 

Yes, the potential exists for a global thermonuclear extinction event, but it hasn't happened.  So while it remains a possibility for the future, for now the rate of violent death, and the number and size of wars in general, continue to decrease.



Horribad_At_Tanks #92 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 22:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 5,658
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostBillT, on Sep 19 2017 - 16:15, said:

 

In absolute numbers, yes.  But then, the world's population is also rising fast.  Pinker's analysis is on a per capita basis, and the data says that a person living today is less likely to die from violence than at any time in our past. See the video Klaatu-Nicto posted, around the 5:40 mark for an example of what I'm saying.  In his book he has a thorough analysis of warfare itself.

 

Yes, the potential exists for a global thermonuclear extinction event, but it hasn't happened.  So while it remains a possibility for the future, for now the rate of violent death, and the number and size of wars in general, continue to decrease.

 

This is a handy site to keep track of the worlds conflict levels. Of all the nations on earth only about ten or so are considered at peace at the moment but the trend is for more peace and not less though the rate is very small.

 

http://visionofhuman...al-peace-index/



Klaatu_Nicto #93 Posted Sep 19 2017 - 22:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 43961 battles
  • 7,311
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostBillT, on Sep 19 2017 - 12:57, said:

Thanks for finding and posting that video!

 

You're welcome.





Also tagged with M4 Sherman

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users