Originally Posted by Uzi

I really hate World War II. It's so played out and I hate that it gets sucked into modern politics all the time.

The thing that concerns me is that World War II is cited as though it was the one and only example of diplomacy and war for us to study. What about the leadup to World War I? What about the conclusion? Could someone stepping back from the brink, being less "tough" have spared everyone a lot of hell? What about the other wars and near wars we have been involved/entangled in? Are there perhaps lessons from the Spanish American War and the following experiences in the Phillipines unheard in the rush to "Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

Originally Posted by Mikebert

?? There was no Polish state in the 19th century. Are you refering to the Polish people? How do they, spilt between the Russians, Austrians and Prussians, constitute an entity?

Mike, did S&H answer any of your questions?

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Mike, did S&H answer any of your questions?

FT to dumbass Pervert: Mike didn't ask any questions to be answered.

Tis a perfect question posed by the idiot bystander, btw, "Uh, duh, what happened?"

Hey, what would one expect of a pervert, anyhow?

Originally Posted by DonRobbie

The thing that concerns me is that World War II is cited as though it was the one and only example of diplomacy and war for us to study. What about the leadup to World War I? What about the conclusion? Could someone stepping back from the brink, being less "tough" have spared everyone a lot of hell? What about the other wars and near wars we have been involved/entangled in? Are there perhaps lessons from the Spanish American War and the following experiences in the Phillipines unheard in the rush to "Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

World War I 'simply' happened and spiraled out of control for all of the participants. All combatants initially showed excessive optimism in their abilities to win quick victories. Almost everyone thought the war a glorious opportunity not to be missed. When the war became a mindless meatgrinder, the national leadership of the belligerents decided that any withdrawal from the war would constitute national shame and cowardice. Nobody could predict far worse -- such as economic and social collapse that would put nations at risk of radical revolutions that threatened everyone having even the most modest semblance of privilege. All to maintain the image of'national' toughness.

Nobody could imagine calamity in a war that could have been avoided. Wouldn't it have been reasonable enough for the Austro-Hungarian Emperor to demand a complete inquiry into the assassination of the Archduke? Wouldn't it have made sense for the Tsar of Russia to decide that the Austro-Hungarian Empire would make short work of Serbia? Why did Kaiser William II believe that Austria-Hungary had to be defended from Russia? Why did France stand on the side of Russia even though it had no legitimate interest in a Russian victory? Why did England choose to stand with France? Why could nobody consider a negotiated settlement when the war was in stalemate?

I look at Dubya's invasion of Iraq and I see a failure to imagine what could go wrong -- or any means of extracting American troops if things went wrong. That's what people do when they play bad chess -- grabbing a couple of pawns while fatally weakening defenses so that the opponent can decimate one's position. But chess pieces are inanimate objects devoid of feeling. There will be another game. For soldiers in a meatgrinder war, war might mean imply sudden death from machine gun bullets. For leaders of a political entity that implodes in political and economic collapse, death might come in a fusillade in a cellar as it did to the Romanovs.

>GTA video franchise.

What of it? I've played it. I know lots of teens who play it. They think it's a bit dopey and a bit funny. It's a game.

In S&H's 2002 blog, William Strauss made a mention of these "lawless video games" and stated that the kind of violence that goes on in these games is more Boomer violence than Hero violence, and he can't understand why Millennials are playing these games because Hero violence is supposed to be of the Establishment type.

It was the only time I've ever seen Bill stumped by something.

Originally Posted by Jesse Manoogian

In S&H's 2002 blog, William Strauss made a mention of these "lawless video games" and stated that the kind of violence that goes on in these games is more Boomer violence than Hero violence, and he can't understand why Millennials are playing these games because Hero violence is supposed to be of the Establishment type.

It was the only time I've ever seen Bill stumped by something.

I'm surprised that they were stumped by this. One of the central ideas that supports generational theory is that we are influenced by what came before us, just as we influence those that come after us.

The Boomers, a generation that S&H describe as one of the "most martial" in recorded history, by and large raised the Millie generation. Besides- these days, it seems like that for every game like GTA, there are 10 games where you are A) killing Nazis, B) fighting some sort of almighty evil, or C) saving the world/humanity in some fashion (not to mention the abundance of military games like America's Army, etc).

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't think that "social research" is enough. Assessing "harm" is a psychological process, and very complex.

The people who research this stuff are psychologists not sociologists or geographers.

Originally Posted by DonRobbie

The thing that concerns me is that World War II is cited as though it was the one and only example of diplomacy and war for us to study. What about the leadup to World War I? What about the conclusion? Could someone stepping back from the brink, being less "tough" have spared everyone a lot of hell? What about the other wars and near wars we have been involved/entangled in? Are there perhaps lessons from the Spanish American War and the following experiences in the Phillipines unheard in the rush to "Operation Iraqi Freedom?"

Every conflict has its lessons. World War II is interesting because of its ideological associations. Officially, in Russia it is still celebrated as a 'victory over fascism" even though Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain, ruled well into the 1970s. In reality, it was a victory over Germany.

Looking back, these ideologies -- Communism, Nationalist Socialism -- seem so primitive. They were carried by the media of their day -- fiery film reels and radio broadcasts. It's hard not to see the Germans or Russians as complete chumps who fell for the imagery of Hitler and the little blonde girls of Germany or Stalin and his red-draped workers.

Then I think back to the foolishness of our country in the throes of invading Iraq. The Jessica Lynch saga, for example. It's so easy to manufacture war, isn't it? Take a lot of fear, add some more, then lecture the masses from a position of strength. How bizarre.

But there are timeless lessons in all conflicts. Our Civil War also had ideological overtones. Even the Great Northern War between Sweden and Russia had them.

What I detest is how our collective unconscious has been influenced by World War II. It as if history began in 1945. I am not sure if that is a Boomer thing or what, but I dislike it. If there is anything I hope a coming crisis will do it will be to liberate our minds from the prison of World War II. It will be to liberate our arguments from Godwin's Law. I am waiting for that day.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Every conflict has its lessons. World War II is interesting because of its ideological associations. Officially, in Russia it is still celebrated as a 'victory over fascism" even though Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain, ruled well into the 1970s.

And Eisenhower, the fascist Republican dictator of Amerika, ruled well into the 1950s. In fact Russia won very little in WWII, save those countries she liberated and re-draped with an Iron Curtain.

Originally Posted by Uzi

What I detest is how our collective unconscious has been influenced by World War II. It as if history began in 1945.

History begins the day you are born, no matter what generation yer part of.

Originally Posted by zilch

And Eisenhower, the fascist Republican dictator of Amerika, ruled well into the 1950s. In fact Russia won very little in WWII, save those countries she liberated and re-draped with an Iron Curtain.


History begins the day you are born, no matter what generation yer part of.

Please let me steal that last line! Seriously, that is a gem!

However, the first part of your post reminds me of this dialogue -

Alan Dershowitz: You are a very strange man.
Claus von Bülow: You have no idea.

- And I envision that this brings a smile to your face.

If you go back before Peter the Great, maybe, but even so...

[quote=Justin '77;204283]
"Since we're talking history, aside from pointing out the fact that the Mongols never took territories that formed the core of modern Russia (that is, Pskov and Velikiy Novgorod)..."

-The Mongols ran the roost in present day Russia, not just Ukraine-Alexander Nevsky was their tax-collecting flunky. It is true that there wasn't much more of interest to conquer in Russia during the 13th century than there was in Kamchatka; maybe global cooling was at fault.

"...and that from those kingdoms, they were driven out of Russia,..."

-More like the typical barbarians-turn-degenerates collapse. I'll check the foreign turnings threads to see if there's been anything done on Mongol turnings & generations that looks like something more than blather.

"...I would direct you to:

• Kukilovo
• Molodi
• Russo-Turkish War (1)
• Russo-Turkish War (2)
• Chesma

-I'll peruse these later.

True, the Russians could (sometimes) beat the Turks, but I don't think I'd use the battle of Plevna as a recent example of Russki military skill. My grand-father raved about the Turks he served alongside in Korea, but that was an small, elite group of specially picked volunteers- Turkish armies generally suck too, regardless of where they are in the generational cycle.

...Which brings up the US Army. The USA always has pretty bad 4T armies, but that has less to do with generational line-ups, and more to do with the fact that we've never done well in preparing the large "mass" (3% or more of population) armies that are (neccessarily) raised during 4Ts (AWI, ACW, WWII); other countries (Germany & Israel) are better at raising mass armies while maintaining some sort of quality; it's institutional rather than generational.

Originally Posted by zilch

And Eisenhower, the fascist Republican dictator of Amerika, ruled well into the 1950s. In fact Russia won very little in WWII, save those countries she liberated and re-draped with an Iron Curtain.


History begins the day you are born, no matter what generation yer part of.

No, the dictator is Retarded George the Puppet whose strings are being pulled by Evil Lord Darth Dick Cheneydemort. We have never seen such a threat in our entire history, WW-II included. We need Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter to save us now.

Originally Posted by takascar2

We have never seen such a threat in our entire history, WW-II included. We need Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter to save us now.

Maybe I'm just an old fashioned boomer type fellow, but I feel obligated to put in a good word for Frodo Baggins...

Originally Posted by playwrite

Please let me steal that last line! Seriously, that is a gem!

Alas, I cannot. The line belongs to Rush Limbaugh. He's a big fan, btw, of Strauss and Howe's generational theory. In fact, S&H have been personal visitors (ie., friendly) to Limbaugh's personal Death Star abode on occasion... perhaps this is enough for liberals to call into question the legitimacy of the S&H theory of history?

I mean, it's one thing for libs to defend a murderer like Claus von Bülow (or even Josef Stalin), it is quite another thing to be on the same page as such consummate Limbaughian evil is any shape manner or form.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Maybe I'm just an old fashioned boomer type fellow, but I feel obligated to put in a good word for Frodo Baggins...

Actually, he might be be the model of the hero we need right now: non-assuming, honest and brave inside where it counts.

Yeah, Frodo will do just fine.

I hate this horrible hysteria.

Originally Posted by takascar2

No, the dictator is Retarded George the Puppet whose strings are being pulled by Evil Lord Darth Dick Cheneydemort. We have never seen such a threat in our entire history, WW-II included. We need Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter to save us now.

In fact, the real dictator is Sith Lord Karl Rove, who has collected powers appropriately reserved to elected officials, persons appointed by the President and affirmed by Congress, or employed by the government and subject to firing for misconduct. The man has even interfered in the legal system by tampering with Federal prosecutors. That's the stuff of Party Bosses -- people never recognized as appropriate wielders of power under our Constitution.
For now the best that we can hope for is for some Gray Champion Boomers to appear and promote wisdom as an alternative to political efficacy.

For anyone to mock others as believing that because they have contempt for George Worthless Bush, Darth Cheney, or Karl Rogue that they think that Dwight Eisenhower was a fascist is of course a mockery of Eisenhower -- and the significance of the political F-word. (I admit that Eisenhower's use of secret agents to overthrow Arbenz in Guatemala and Mossadegh in Iran was wrong -- but that is the extent to which I find his administration objectionable).

Dubya is a disaster. He has achieved little except to gut civil liberties and to transfer wealth from the middle class to oil sultans here and world wide and to the military-industrial complex. But zilch cannot see that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, he might be be the model of the hero we need right now: non-assuming, honest and brave inside where it counts.

Yeah, Frodo will do just fine.

Don't dare call Frodo a hero! He's just a guy who did what he needed to do, then went back home. He's not the kind of thing you find; he's the kind of thing you have to be.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Don't dare call Frodo a hero! He's just a guy who did what he needed to do, then went back home. He's not the kind of thing you find; he's the kind of thing you have to be.

I assume then that you have never actually met a true hero. Heroism is the victory of necessity over fear. Heroes are rarely born as such. Most would never consider themselves hero-material until the time they actually perform. Not all heroes succeed, either. The Medal of Honor is awarded posthumously more often than not.

Yes, I call Frodo a hero. He performed in the best traditions of heroism, by doing the necessary at great personal risk while knowing his odds of success were slim. How do you define hero?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

For anyone to mock others as believing that because they have contempt for George Worthless Bush, Darth Cheney, or Karl Rogue that they think that Dwight Eisenhower was a fascist is of course a mockery of Eisenhower -- and the significance of the political F-word.

He knows that but he doesn't care. And you ought to know that by now. And yes, it was in fact Eisenhower who alerted us to a fascist presence in the form of a "Military-Industrial Complex." Ike was milquetoast, but he was a good man.

Dubya is a disaster. He has achieved little except to gut civil liberties and to transfer wealth from the middle class to oil sultans here and world wide and to the military-industrial complex. But zilch cannot see that.

He can see it, but he adamantly refuses to. He'd have to give up hating "those people" (i.e. Democrats and all others who do not drink the Bush Kool-Aid) if he did. Again, you ought to know this by now.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, I call Frodo a hero. He performed in the best traditions of heroism, by doing the necessary at great personal risk while knowing his odds of success were slim.

Then you've shifted the terms of the discussion. It started out as:
We have never seen such a threat in our entire history, WW-II included. We need Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter to save us now.
Frodo didn't aim to Save People. That's not what made him great; but it is exactly the quality that makes Heroes dangerous. In fact, Frodo didn't particularly aim at all. He found himself upon a path that was worth traveling, and set himself to travel it.
Anyway, calling Frodo a Hero loses sight of Sam -- the truly critical of the two. And what was the extent of Sam's motivation? To stand by his friend even to the very end -- far past simple 'slim odds'. About as far from Captain America as you could get...

I fully agree that Frodos (and Sams) are exactly the thing that humanity need to be if it is to survive. But to group them as if they were no better than the rest of the whole crew of do-gooders? That's a pretty serious error. They're far more than mere Heroes.

Originally Posted by zilch

Alas, I cannot. The line belongs to Rush Limbaugh. He's a big fan, btw, of Strauss and Howe's generational theory. In fact, S&H have been personal visitors (ie., friendly) to Limbaugh's personal Death Star abode on occasion... perhaps this is enough for liberals to call into question the legitimacy of the S&H theory of history?

I mean, it's one thing for libs to defend a murderer like Claus von Bülow (or even Josef Stalin), it is quite another thing to be on the same page as such consummate Limbaughian evil is any shape manner or form.

Your version of "You have no idea" does send a chill down the spine!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Then you've shifted the terms of the discussion. It started out as:
We have never seen such a threat in our entire history, WW-II included. We need Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter to save us now.
Frodo didn't aim to Save People. That's not what made him great; but it is exactly the quality that makes Heroes dangerous. In fact, Frodo didn't particularly aim at all. He found himself upon a path that was worth traveling, and set himself to travel it.
Anyway, calling Frodo a Hero loses sight of Sam -- the truly critical of the two. And what was the extent of Sam's motivation? To stand by his friend even to the very end -- far past simple 'slim odds'. About as far from Captain America as you could get...

I fully agree that Frodos (and Sams) are exactly the thing that humanity need to be if it is to survive. But to group them as if they were no better than the rest of the whole crew of do-gooders? That's a pretty serious error. They're far more than mere Heroes.

We're talking past one another. We agree more than disagree, I think. Tolkien was a Brit, through and through. He went straight for the unassuming, muddle-through version of heroism. That model served the UK well. We might do well to learn it, if we plan on being the hegemon for a while (not that we have a choice, apparently).

Originally Posted by The Rani

What's a Frodo?

A question only an Xer would have to ask.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What's a Frodo?

He is a hobbit from the Shire.