Kursk

A certain "JED" has recently stated in his controversial, frequently fact-distorting blog of hate and lies that the Luftwaffe would be able to defeat the Heer because air supremacy plays such a vital role in combat, and because, in his own words, "when one side had the air controlled, that side was winning." Though air supremacy surely played a vital role in this battle, the fact is that this is simply not true. The Germans had air supremacy throughout the entire battle - such was their dominance that they lost only 39 aircraft, and the Soviets lost 386. BUT THE GERMANS DID NOT WIN. They were pushing an offensive, and the soviets stopped them. Why, despite this overwhelming aerial victory which cannot even be disputed, could the soviets have won this fight? The answer is simple: in warfare, air is but a side note to the central ground battle.

The Dunkirk Evacuation

If, hypothetically, one were to believe that the Dunkirk Evacuation were proof that the air force was more powerful than the land army, one would be greatly mistaken. A certain honorable colleague of mine attempted to use this as proof of the superiority of the air force over land armies, when, in his own words, it was an attempt by the shattered remnants of the British forces to escape. What's more, they were escaping from the beaches! On boats! The day boats count as land weapons, while it will be glorious, is not a day that had occurred during the time of the Dunkirk evacuation. It was the shattered remnants of an army fleeing by sea - not an example of the air force defeating the army. Not at all.

The Cold War

Part of what I feel is so interesting about the cold war is that because of nuclear weapons, the two couldn't just have a big war, but had to work through proxy countries. However, what I find more interesting than that is the fact that the proxy countries proved to be so difficult to conquer. It would appear that something like that would be easy - Vietnam had little military strength - but America's quagmire that it ultimately became trapped in would end up revealing the uselessness of warfare during this period, which was part of what was so important - the major countries stopped getting involved, playing the role of the man behind the man rather than directly fighting.

WW2 Land Combat Source Infodump

Now that I've begun my research on the German army during WW2, I'll just link some of my sources here for now: the wikipedia page, the wikipedia page on the German tanks, and a website called Achtung Panzer!

World War 2

The thing that I most like about World War 2's story is the degree to which it seems to follow so many typical heroic tropes. It started, as the book makes clear in its description, Hitler initially conquered France and it shocked the Allies, then it seemed that Britain was alone in a struggle against Hitler, with Russia also fighting him but being barely a friend and at least a very dangerous ally, until America entered the war and saved everybody. The textbook heroic story of the war, I feel, may be a major contributor to the way in which it tends to be viewed as justified, unlike World War 1, whose story was essentially "lots of people die, nothing really happens."

Hitler's Rise to Power

Hitler's rise to power is a fascinating exercise in the power of oratory to control people. According to wikipedia, Hitler's rise to power was largely due to his oratory and organizational abilities, as well as his willingness to use any means to get to where he is. My first thought about the election of Hitler, as with most people, is that he was a mad dictator and there's no way I wouldn't have personally opposed him. However, upon thinking about it, something about having a man come to power who is going to solve all the problems appeals to me on some level. Thinking about a government like ours, where the people are against so many things and have so many little views that the government has to respond to, sometimes I think that it would be better if we could just have one person take over and deal with everything, and that's how I imagine Germany must have felt before Hitler - and now, Hitler is the reason people tend to not give in to those thoughts.

The Debate: Final Reflections

Our debate in class was very interesting - seeing how each side defended its own point, and how the pro-fascism side (especially Nick) managed to convey the sense of insane fanaticism present so often in fascism. The central problem with the debate was the problem with all debate, which is that you can't prove philosophical postulates and each team entered with different ones. Their team continuously referenced anti-social elements being suppressed, and our team continuously said that what was more important was tolerance.
It's possible that this is a reflection of how everything worked in the actual world - there cannot be reasoned debate, and sometimes even discussion is strained, when two opposing sides have worldviews based on mutually contradictory postulates.