Picture of the day

:popCorn:

Definitely, however many countries in the world were guilty of the same or worse. One is demonized, however the others are given a free pass. I treat all empires and nations equally, and as such I recognize that all nations (I challenge someone to find one that isn't) are built on someone elses death and misfortune. Those of you deluded enough to only believe that one nation is guilty of such crimes really need to get a good lesson in history.

Here are some rough numbers and nations/people guilty of genocide (in no way is this complete). Stalin (34 million being a low quote), Mao (60 million), the British Empire (29+million in India, plus how many others killed in North America and elsewhere), Spanish Empire (roughly 8 million in Central America), Ottoman Empire/Turkey (1.5 million Armenians), Yugoslavia and the nations which spawned from it (Bosnia in the 90s and genocide after WWII), Italy (80,000 at the low end), America (Native Americans), France (150,000+), Canada (happening until 1996 within our own borders), etc. etc.

No one is innocent and acknowledging that is the only way anyone can move forward. One of my favourite quotes "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt".

The same or worse? In the 1st and 2nd worlds racial extermination is something that belonged to ancient history* until it was revived by Turkey in the genocide of the Armenians that began under the Ottomans and was continued under the "Young Turks". Their close ally Germany had an interesting hand in that episode; it's been said that Hitler referred to it in relation to his plans for racial exterminations. Incidentally, the Bundestag has just ratified a motion recognizing the Armenian genocide as such. The Turkish government has recalled their ambassador and is in a great kerfuffle at the moment, despite Merkel's attempts to smooth them down. The funny thing is, the DNA of those who call themselves Turks today is only about 20% Turkic. The other 80% is composed of the descendants of the previous residents of Anatolia and of the Ottoman "blood tax" which every five years seized the best children from only the Christian families within the Ottoman Empire and dragged them off to be forcibly converted to Islam, enlisted in the Janissaries or put into the harems etc.

A rather unique kind of racial and religious vampirism, but echoed in the Nazi kidnapping of over 200,000 "Aryan" appearing children from places like Poland. Incidentally, anyone who wants to understand the depth of hatred in places like the former Yugoslavia, has only to realize that those conquered people who took the easy way out and converted to Islam were allowed to avoid the "blood tax". Imagine that you have some quisling neighbors who have converted and now spy out your children for the next collection! Imagine being forced to choose between losing your faith and losing your children. What would you do to the people who did that to you for centuries? Of course, casual rape and seizure or killing of women and boys was merely a matter of course. Read about the atrocities in the Balkan War of 1912 if you're curious.

As for your 29 million the British supposedly dispatched in India, did you weigh against it all the innumerable lives saved by the institution of laws, courts, public health measures, infrastructure, transportation networks etc. etc.? Not on that website huh? A good start can be made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

Not quite the same as a Final Solution is it?

I see you're missing a number for Canada, and just what was it that was happening "within our borders until 1996"?:confused:

It's all shades of grey? Sure, all the way from off-white to coal black. :rolleyes:

Proving precisely nothing, but surely providing a convenient catch-all escape clause that avoids the necessity of knowledge or the intelligent interpretation of it.

(BTW, your figures for France and Italy are much too low, read about their behaviour in Abyssinia and Algeria & Indochina respectively.) We won't even get into Belgium's German king and his little adventures in the Congo.

*Partial exception made for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of the French Protestants and some incidents in "Germany" during the Thirty Years War.
 
Last edited:
More pics, less endless debate.

image.jpg
 
tumblr_o65udaErHZ1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg

Female Snipers of the 3rd Shock Army, 1st Belorussian Front - 775 confirmed kills in one photograph

If this was taken during the war, and they had the same overall survival rate as other Soviet snipers, only 3 of them would have made it to march in the victory parades.

It was nothing but tough business on the Eastern Front. The more I learn about the East Front, the more I feel for the young men and women who fought there. And yes, even the young German boys, most of whom were decent enough fellows who weren't involved in the "extracurricular activities" of the fanatics. Just kids, off on an adventure they'd been led to believe was the right thing to do for their country.

What they got was one of the nastiest, knock-em-down, drag-em-out, no holds barred fights in history.

For nothing. Absolutely nothing. Ego-maniacal madmen running the show on both sides.
 
Sounds like you're describing the war in Afghanistan that took the lives of 184 young Canadian soldiers. "Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose."

What they got was one of the nastiest, knock-em-down, drag-em-out, no holds barred fights in history.

For nothing. Absolutely nothing. Ego-maniacal madmen running the show on both sides.
 
tumblr_o65udaErHZ1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg

Female Snipers of the 3rd Shock Army, 1st Belorussian Front - 775 confirmed kills in one photograph
Some additional info on the women in the picture.

Female snipers of the 3rd Shock Army, 1st Belorussian Front (left to right).
1st row - Guard Staff Sergeant, VN Stepanov: 20 kills. Guard Sgt JP Belousov:80 kills. Guard Sgt AE Vinogradov: 83 kills.
2nd row - Guard Lieutenant EK Zhibovskaya: 24 kills. Guard Sgt KF Marinkin: 79 kills. Guard Sgt OS Marenkina: 70 kills.
3rd row - Guard Lieutenant NP Belobrova: 70 kills. Lieutenant N. Lobkovsky: 89 kills. Guard Lieutenant VI Artamonov: 89 kills. Guard Staff Sergeant MG Zubchenko: 83 kills.
4th row - Guard Sergeant, NP Obukhov: 64 kills. Guard Sergeant, AR Belyakov 24 kills
 
The Russian claims of number of kills are generally thought to be greatly exaggerated if not fabricated. In "The British Sniper" an account is related of the visit of a "decorated Russian sniper" to a British range after WW2. When given a No4 to shoot he showed ignorance of the basic fundamentals of rifle practice. The British present concluded that it was "impossible for this this man to have been a sniper in any accepted sense."
Russia invented both the Potemkin village and the "Stakhanonvite worker."
 
The Russian claims of number of kills are generally thought to be greatly exaggerated if not fabricated.

I would agree that the Soviets tended to exaggerate their successes, however, there can be little doubt that their snipers were effective. Zaitsev's record has been called into question but it has been noted without a doubt that he was an exceptional marksman. It remains to be answered why the Soviets, with their penchant for propaganda, would they allow a Finn to have a higher kill count than one of their own. More peculiar when you consider that all of his kills were against them.
 
Sounds like you're describing the war in Afghanistan that took the lives of 184 young Canadian soldiers. "Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose."

I agree with you and grelmar - what a waste of life.....It would be very hard to identify a terrorist(s) that has conducted an attack on a western site that cannot be connected to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Syria ..and yet those countries are treated with kid gloves. Terrorist attacks on western locations connected solely to Afghanistan...not so much....even Ben Laden was ultimately found in Pakistan as were the two recent 'hits'.... the only good news about the troop commitment to Afghanistan is that some of those young guys may have been safer there than in the GTA if they hung around with the wrong folks! And I am not talking about traffic accidents in the GTA either.
 
I would agree that the Soviets tended to exaggerate their successes, however, there can be little doubt that their snipers were effective. Zaitsev's record has been called into question but it has been noted without a doubt that he was an exceptional marksman. It remains to be answered why the Soviets, with their penchant for propaganda, would they allow a Finn to have a higher kill count than one of their own. More peculiar when you consider that all of his kills were against them.

Both sides tended to exaggerate their successes, maybe the soviets a bit more. However, there is no doubt that Soviet snipers were effective otherwise why would snipers be universally tortured and murdered by the Germans, not saying German snipers were treated any better by the Soviets but it was SOP to ensure that all captured snipers where killed very painfully. You don't do that if they are a minor irritant.
 
Both sides tended to exaggerate their successes, maybe the soviets a bit more. However, there is no doubt that Soviet snipers were effective otherwise why would snipers be universally tortured and murdered by the Germans, not saying German snipers were treated any better by the Soviets but it was SOP to ensure that all captured snipers where killed very painfully. You don't do that if they are a minor irritant.

Soviet "snipers" also filled a different role than what we traditionally think of as snipers. Generally, they were more along the lines of what we would call a Designated Marksman, fielded along with an infantry unit to provide precise fire at a slight stand off distance, while the unit was providing volume of fire closer in. For that kind of shooting, you needed to be "minute of Nazi" at 100-200, possibly as far as 300meters, which requires a modicum of extra skill and training compared to the average infantryman.

That isn't to say they didn't have true snipers as well, able to make shots at much larger distances, but that wasn't the overall doctrine.

And it was very effective. It also informed their weapon design and doctrine after the war. The Dragunov isn't a spectacularly accurate sub-MOA rifle. It's a full powered rifle that can make torso hits out to 400-500 meters with great reliability. And these types of "snipers" (again, more realistically a Designated Marksman), are deployed on a unit level to provide more precise fire at standoff distances. At the same time, the Dragunov is a semi auto, with a quick detach scope, that can be effective in a street fight - its very design is indicative of the role the end user is supposed to play within the unit.
 
Both sides tended to exaggerate their successes, maybe the soviets a bit more. However, there is no doubt that Soviet snipers were effective otherwise why would snipers be universally tortured and murdered by the Germans, not saying German snipers were treated any better by the Soviets but it was SOP to ensure that all captured snipers where killed very painfully. You don't do that if they are a minor irritant.

Also Russians do not admit much to horrible losses of trained marksmen/snipers in 1941(that goes for all specialists) .Before war Soviet RKKA had tens of thousands of very well trained specialists,some of them trained in pre 1933 Germany.Great most of them were gone by Dec 1941,a lot of those that survived ended in NKVD prisons and those formed backbone of revised Sniper schools after March 1942.

There are numerous accounts of above in newly printed memoirs of solders from both sides.
 
Back
Top Bottom