for 18 August 2000. Updated every WEEKDAY.
|
|
Hit & Run
Dear Sucksters: Nice to see the Great Patriotic War get its correct recognition. Nobody who wasn't there, or at least hasn't seen the remains, can conceive of what the Russian people suffered. The Russians, at least, still remember. A visit to St Petersburg (nee Leningrad - where are the Snowdens of yesterday?) is incomplete without a few trips to the Summer Palaces, and every room shows what they looked like after the Germans left. Almost unbelievable mindless destruction, for no real reason. The Amber Room - where in Germany is it buried? When you read that the Russians won't return war booty, take a look at what they're owed. In theory, war vets still get preferential treatment in the subways; and you won't find a lot of people who don't think they deserve it. Which brings me, without noticeable transition, to my rant about "the greatest generation." Yeah, they were all seriously brave guys. My father, my uncle, my girl friends' fathers: serious bravery. But if they (or, more fairly, their fathers and older brothers) hadn't criminally fucked up before then, would all that bravery have been necessary? The Great Depression was, more than anything else, the fruit of incompetent fiscal policies. The Second World War was a function of massive moral cowardice and a refusal of the US to take its responsibilities seriously. Just as adventure is somebody being uncomfortable far away, bravery is the result of somebody making a very bad bet that has to be paid off, in blood. Bear that in mind the next time somebody whines about how "they don't make them the way they used to." Alan Kornheiser "Insulter of both national and personal dignity. <askornheiser@prodigy.net> Sherman Alexie had a good insight on that not making them the way they used to business. During a recent tirade against the founding fathers, he said, "I would take any white man of the current generation over George Washington, who was an imperialist, racist, sexist, homophobic jerk." Sucksters  Greetings Sucksters; A leftist candidate (hmm, would that be Unsafe at any Speed Nader) declaring the triumph of collectivism over the evils of the Nazi War Machine and asking us to celebrate with another "May Day." It would then be up to the real lovers of liberty to point out that Nazism is but another version of the collectivist mind set. Stalin, Hitler; does it really matter who steals your life? Regards, Daniel Corvino Trenton, NJ <DANCORV@aol.com> We don't know who stole our lives, Daniel, but we know our hearts were stolen long ago by the Trentonian, the best-kept secret in American newspapers. You lucky stiff, you get to read that fine publication every day! Sucksters The Code War You wrote: "The revelation that Oracle hired a group of bungling private dicks to dig into the finances (and through the trash) of trade groups that support Microsoft surprised exactly no one." These "trade groups," as you call them, were actually lobbying organizations that were part of Microsoft's "Freedom to Innovate" campaign. As you may recall, this campaign was aimed at getting a favorable decision for Microsoft in their antitrust dispute with the Justice Department. When Microsoft covertly funds "trade groups" and "grass roots" efforts to affect a decision of this magnitude, the public's interest is clearly involved.Oracle performed a service by exposing this covert funding. The fact that it indirectly helped Oracle by making Microsoft look bad is beside the point. A question to ask: why don't media organizations get involved in this sort of reporting? This would have been a great story for some up-and-coming investigative "new media" site. This trash-digging story is not just about Oracle - the facts that they uncovered about Microsoft are the real news. Gary Stephens <garyrstephens@yahoo.com> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah. Microsoft gives out money in exchange for good press? Why, I'm... I'm shocked! The fact that the folks up Redmond way are unethical scumbags doesn't exactly come as a surprise. But to defend Oracle as champions of democracy and the flag-bearers for a laggardly Forth Estate is a load of crap. Oracle was looking out for exactly one thing: Oracle, just as Microsoft was looking out for exactly one thing: Microsoft. They're both bottom-feeders, equally so, who wouldn't recognize fair play if it walked up and kicked them in the ass. Bill Gates and Larry Ellison deserve each other. Greg Knauss Are you the guy that did that wicked parody of Slashdot? <bob@linux-mag.com> Yep. Unless you're armed and angry. Then it was Polly. Greg Knauss As someone who soldiered for a few years (that's in a green beret and jungle fatigues, not Polo over Dockers) I propose the following Turing-like test for software-biz- as-war. When one company can get someone to strap explosives to his or her body, walk into the executive suite of the competition, and detonate themselves, then software biz is war. Love and kisses and the answer to the question "What is the Spirit of the Bayonet?"* * "To kill!" RCR <rroist@home.com> Actually, I know a few consultants who would be happy to do this, but only because they think they wouldn't have to stick around to see how it works out. And while actual murder hasn't played into the software industry much yet - (Dramatic chord) that we know of - can Outlook Express be considered anything but a terrorist act? Greg Knauss I like it. From the employees perspective, it couldn't get much worse in the shallow end of the software industry - games. Check out the fatbabies.com forums. I learn all kinds of things there. For example: did you know that game testing causes body odor? Or that code writing makes your wife ugly? Neither did I, until I started surfing the internet while I was on the clock. jpowers <jpowers500@worldnet.att.net> Y'know, in the great Cold War of the software industry, people who browse at work are the moral equivalent of slacker, drop-out, stoner hippies. Dude! Pass the bong! Greg Knauss Hit & Run Yes, the Russians lost a staggering 26 million people (compared to 350,000 USA, 810,00 French and 388,000 UK), and Hitler's biggest mistake was messing with Russia, but: A) Russia would not have won the war on its own. That idea is preposterous. If Hitler didn't have vast resources tied up in other spots around the globe (notably, defending the entire west coast of Europe, his greatest general in North Africa), he would've taken Moscow and killed 100 million Soviets. The Soviets would also have been completely fucked without the vast amounts of supplies and armaments that the allies provided during the war. B) Those "costly sideshows" by "the soft underbelly" kept Germany spread waaayyyy too thin and denied Hitler consolidation of resources. See point A. C) As far as the Battle of Berlin goes, the unbelievable casualty rate was the result of the Russians haste in entering and taking the city before the west. Granted, part of it was a need for bloodthirsty revenge (I'd be pissed if a country killed 25 million of my people), but Russia's greed for land played a large stake in that tally. C'mon. I've heard of exaggeration to make a point, but the Reds would've been celebrating Oktoberfest if Hitler had limited the scope of his war to the Communists. Fortunately, he was an egomaniacal, delusional dumbass. Bill Ardolino <Bill.Ardolino@MeriStar.com> Thanks, Bill. Taking your points one at a time: Hitler's failure to take Moscow occurred in 1941, while the United Kingdom was still fighting for its life and before the United States had even entered the war. The brutal Russian winter and fearsome Soviet counterattack that the Germans endured in the winter 1941-42 are matters of well-established historical fact and widespread popular legend. Whether the Germans would have been able to take Moscow on a second try in the summer of 1942 is a matter of conjecture. Guderian (who for Suck's money was Germany's real greatest general) believed they could have, but in the event it was Hitler's decision to concentrate the summer offensive on the southern Ukraine and Caucasus. This decision had nothing to do with the Western Allies, and the offensive ended at Stalingrad, where the Germans lost in one fell swoop an army larger than the combined forces that were at that time facing US and UK forces. (That the Germans were able to fight on vigorously for three years after this loss should give some indication of the size of their commitment in Russia). We stand by our "costly sideshows" comment. It was in fact the US and the UK that were spread waayy too thin in the Mediterranean, where the Germans were able to hold off both allies with a commitment of forces that never amounted to more than 20 percent of their total military. As for the greatest general in North Africa, the reason Rommel is known as the "Desert Fox" rather than the "Desert Tiger" or "Desert Bull" is that the fox is considered a powerless animal that keeps vastly stronger enemies at bay through his wit and cunning. At its peak commitment, Germany never had more than a token force in Africa. Statistics support this claim, as do numerous anecdotes, such as the one in which Rommel, during his arrival parade in Tripoli, had his troops secretly double back at the end of their parade route and march through again, to give a false impression of his strength. That he was able to survive at all against the bulk of the British army, navy and air force is a testament to both his skill and the incompetence of the British leadership, but there is no evidence for the African war as anything but an afterthought to the main event in Europe - a main event that until the middle of 1944 was being played out exclusively between Germany and Russia. It's true that US supplies to the USSR helped the Russians immensely, but the Russian counterattack of 1941 and victory at Stalingrad a year later both occured before US supplies began reaching the Soviet Union in any appreciable numbers. On their own, the Russians turned the tide of the war months before receiving serious US assistance, and fully years before the US got involved on the European continent. On their own, they may not have won the war by 1945, but they would have won it nonetheless. You also shouldn't dismiss Soviet production, which gave the Russians the best tank of the war and an air force that eventually came to dominate even the vaunted Luftwaffe. Finally, the Russians had no need of haste in taking Berlin, since the job of conquering the German capitol had been allotted to them at the Yalta conference. There was no race with the Western Allies, at least as far as Berlin was concerned. They lost a lot of people there because the Germans fought hard until the bitter end. Thanks for convincing me that all those hours spent poring over Life Goes to War and the collected works of S.L.A. Marshall were not a total loss. yr pal, BarTel American adults generally believe their WWII contribution was the deciding factor because that's what Americans were taught in public schools. A majority of Americans have never read historical analysis on any subject and possess a limited knowledge of WWII which was manufactured in Hollywood where film studios have been known to twist events in pursuit of a hawkable product. However, the relentless drive of the Soviets was just one factor in the Nazi defeat. And I doubt they would have had much success without some outside assistance. America's industrial output was an important factor. Much of the Red Army's supporting material was supplied by the US under a lend-lease agreement. They could not have advanced at all without the thousands of American trucks and other equipment. Of course, it's too complex to boil down to one factor but in general, it was the Hitler's miscalculated attempt to capture Moscow followed by Red Army's fanatical drive enabled by massive amounts of US material aid. Robert Fulton <robert.fulton@cwhkt.com> Yeah, Mr. Fulton, you're just talking up American industry because you invented the steam engine. We say the Russkies are A-OK! Sucksters You know I have come to find that even when I disagree with one of your articles conclusions (which isn't all that often), I have always been amazed at the accuracy of the sucksters (wholly or piecemeal) pov and facts. But today when you said the Soviets could have knocked the Nazi's boots alone, you were PAINFULLY wrong. I am not some 70 year vet with a laundry list to present you but even a cursory glance at the last three years of the war show the enormous strain placed on germany by minor things like the African and Italian campaigns, the building of the "West Wall" defenses on the coasts (as well as the million plus troops left there to defend it), and of course the minor effect of the 3 year long round the clock british/american bombing offensives which certainly took thier toll in luftwaffe aircraft and general german capability. HA! I lied. apparently I did have a laundry list. I blame clinton's example for such a blatant disregard for my earlier written promises. Otherwise, Suck on my brothers/sisters/non-gendered digital entities! John Siminoff <doomon_you@yahoo.com> Oh yeah? Then how come Colonel Hogan can always get Klink, Schultz, and Burkhalter to hop to just by threatening to have them sent to the Russian front? Sucksters Hey, thanks for the history lesson. If the general ignorance of history (even recent history) is as bad as it's supposed to be, no doubt you've convinced a few thousand readers that the whole point of U.S. involvement in the European theater was just a ploy to take part of the credit for crushing fascism away from the Worker's Paradise. "if [the USSR] had fought the Germans singlehandedly, the USSR still would have won."? You guys ever hear of lend-lease? The reason the Red Army suffered so many casualties in most of their campaigns was because even with lend-lease they were so short of equipment that they had to rely on the expendability of their troops. As far as the Battle of the Bulge goes, Hitler had pulled several of his best tank divisions away from the Eastern front for this offensive, and it still failed to break through the allied lines. Get a map and see how far the Germans were able to push the Russians back with their counteroffensives, and how often the Russian lines broke. The only thing that saved them was the fact that the Germans had too little fuel to exploit their gains across the distances involved. Mixed results? That's indefensible. I'd point out that it's also an insult to veterans, but I realize that that was probably your intent from the beginning. Also, is every angry person who prints a bumper sticker a "nincompoop"? Just wondering. Yours, Logan Rogers <logerogers@aol.com> Lend-lease was possibly America's greatest contribution to the war, and the one of which we should now be proudest (more below), but as far as the Battle of the Bulge, you need to take a look at the map of Europe. The Germans not only broke through the American lines, they mauled the defenses so badly that whole divisions (including Kurt Vonnegut's outfit, the 106th Infantry) basically ceased to exist. We can play the Battle now as an against-the-odds victory, but despite the brilliant defense of Bastogne, the fact is that the Germans took the US totally by surprise (a real disgrace, given that they had used the exact same tactic in the exact same place in 1914 and again in 1940) swept through large parts of Belgium, and kept the vastly superior US forces so off-balance that the Americans were unable to realize their plan of crossing the Rhine into Germany until the following March - three or four months after they had initially planned. The attack was a failure only in the sense that its original goal of capturing Antwerp and repeating the success of 1940 was impossible from the start. As for the insult to our veterans, well, it always comes back to that, doesn't it? Anybody who fought the Germans at all deserves our respect, but honoring veterans doesn't mean we have to believe things that are not true. And there's a more important point here, one that has to do with the perversion of American ideals that people like Tom Brokaw and Stephen Ambrose play into when they lay these absurd plaudits on the fighting men of that Great Generation (as if Generation X or Y or W wouldn't have done the same thing in the same circumstances). The fact that America has never been particularly good at turning out homicidal martinets is something we should be proud of, not something we should cover up with fake tales of martial prowess. Lend-lease, and the powerful economy, industrial efficiency, hard work and initiative that made it possible, are what Americans should invoke when we want to claim World War II bragging rights. Most of what Brokaw in particular lauds as great virtue involves the ability to shoot and kill on command. By his measure, in fact, the most virtuous people of the war should be the Germans, since, like it or not, they were by a long shot the best fighters. This idea that the country is great in proportion to its ability to invade other countries is fairly recent in American history, and it's a little dismaying to see that belief growing, rather than fading, with time. We'll leave the details to the historians, but a country worth living for beats a country worth dying for any day. Sucksters Since when is the Washington Times a "normally respectable old rag"??? Kristin <kconradi@macromedia.com> The best line about the Washington Times came from Lynn Samuels of WABC radio: "It's like a Hebrew paper; you have to read it backwards it's so distorted." Sucksters In your 8/10 feature on radio, you stated that the ENIAC was the first vacuum-tube computer. In fact, the Colossus, a vacuum-tube machine build by Alan Turing and his gang to break German codes, predates ENIAC by a few years. Of course, they were all destroyed after the war, leaving most folks to ignore their existence. Kinda the same way everybody forgets that WWII was largely a Soviet-German war. Fletcher Moore <fletch@1099.com> What's even less widely known is that prior to vacuum tubes, computers were powered by a miniature dinosaur who lived inside the works and would scribble zeros and ones on a slate and then say things like "One calculation down, three hundred billion to go... I hate this job!" Sucksters Hi, as an (goddamn) Finn (you know, from the country of the Jukka bros., Finland), I find the US presidential election both absolutely hilarious and absolutely terrifying at the same time. Not getting into that, I would just like to see you do something original as a representative of sorts of US media: bash the Democrats also. I understand that you have to choose sides, but I find it very refreshing when you say you support someone and then strike at their stupidities and weaknesses. It gives you more credibility. By bashing the republicans you just seem so like everybody else on the liberal side of the media. Well, that's it, and thanks for reading.. MJ <w357@hotmail.com> Not to worry, MJ. Suck is notably short on members of the Democratic party, and as far as the editor is concerned, this election proves three things: * That there has never been a better time to vote for a third party. * That California should secede from the United States * That the office of the Presidency should be abolished. As we see little chance of realizing any of those goals, we will not be giving aid or comfort to the Democrats. Sucksters |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||
 |  |
|||||||||||||||
 |   | |||||||||||||||
![[Tim Cavanaugh]](/fish/staff/images/tim.gif)
![[Phillip Bailey]](/fish/staff/images/phil.gif){kind=small}
