8 ms·

Headlines compared: Polish newspapers from 1939 and news websites from 2022

116 points by stared 5y ago

abraxas 5y ago
It's shocking how much delusion around the world there was about Poland being able to defend itself against Hitler's invasion. Are we similarly deluding ourselves about Ukraine?
- nickff 5y ago
  Poland was completely conquered in 5 weeks (35 days), after having been attacked from two sides (by Germany and the Soviet Union). We are currently 26 days into this war, and Ukraine is holding up much better. This map shows how far the Germans got in two weeks, and it's much more than what the Russians have done so far in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg
  - epolanski 5y ago
    German invasion involved a much larger army. Germans invaded with 1.5M infantry soldiers alone. Russia barely has 15k, 100 times less, right now in Ukraine, most are mechanized. The scale of the war is immensely different. edit: I know there's a higher estimated Russian count but it's not infantry.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - yrgulation 5y ago
      Russia has at least 150k troops in Ukraine and the estimate doesn't include those from Syria and Chechnya.
      - epolanski 5y ago
        And of those a small part is infantry as I said, mostly those are mechanized units.
        yrgulation 5y ago
        Thanks for the clarification - do you have a link to detailed stats about the invading army? Cant find a detailed breakdown.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      The number would be closer to 100 000 russian soldiers according to the pentagon, with 70-80% of it engaged inside ukraine already. But yes that's still just a fraction of the total russian army, and the ukrainian army had very similar numbers on the ground at the start of the war. So it's not equivalent to ww2 at all. But yes, the current situation is actually very different to WW2 with even the few similarities being at most superficial. But every war is compared to WW2 since it's a nice way to push for escalation under the pretext of stopping the next hitler. Yet WW1 is almost always a more appropriate example, but a pretty inconvenient one since it does not fit into war mongering narratives. Because I'm just not sure that saving serbia back in 1914 was really worth the lives of 10 million people in hindsight.
  - lumost 5y ago
    The invasion of Poland was much bloodier than is often recalled. The Germans and Soviets invaded with 2 million soldiers and incurred 59 thousand casualties. The Russians are conducting direct combat operations with every major Ukrainian city except for Lviv and Odessa. The center of Ukraine is largely farmland and small villages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - sb057 5y ago
    Keep in mind that while the popular conception of WWII is as a mechanized war, everyone (especially the fuel-starved Germans) was still incredibly reliant on foot and horse-based movement. I don't believe the German army even had experimental APCs at the start of the war. The commonly cited number for how fast a traditional army can march is 20 miles per day, unopposed. The BTR-80 is rated for 50 miles per hour. Obviously APCs have to deal with refueling and maintenance and the like, but surely a modern mechanized army shouldn't moving slower than a comparable unmechanized one from 80 years ago.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - IAmGraydon 5y ago
    Actually, Poland was defeated in 26 days. The invasion started on Sept 1 and concluded on Sept 27.
  - explaingarlic 5y ago
    It's extremely misleading, that sort of map view of a war like liveuamap tries to create. There is going to be no attempt to defend farmland, little towns or villages etc. The fact is that the administrative and economic centres of Ukraine are Ukraine. Once they are under Russian control, there is very little anyone can do. The sort-of map view of a war is too flawed. It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc. - and it lends itself nicely to video games (which, let's face it, are most people's only experience of grand strategy and warfare). It's just not how warfare works, and the victory condition for the Russian army is maybe a month and a half away at current pace, by my estimation. The information in the map that you linked is meaningful for sure, but it neglects the details that actually determine any side's performance in the war - you cannot extract the war's velocity from it.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      “ It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc.” This seems to describe Ukraine after Russia destroyed the city center…
  - lleb97a 5y ago
    How can you compare two wars 80 years apart given the advancements in nearly every area. Polish soldiers couldn't watch German soldiers moving around from the safety of a bunker via a phone screen. The available, basic intelligence alone could keep a war like this going for months. It's why I don't understand how it's happened. Wars like this - between modern countries - just should not exist as a matter of common sense (e.g. Mutual destruction theory).
  - c0nducktr 5y ago
    Wars just don't happen as quick as they used to? It was 168 days from invasion to "First post-Saddam government" in 2003.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Based on what I'm seeing in mainstream Western press and especially memes that people share, yes. For starters, Russia lost ~10% of its forces so far - but so did Ukraine (side note: if seriously believe the figures that Ukrainian Ministry of Defense publishes for Russian casualties, I have a bridge to sell you). The difference is that Ukraine is already fully engaged - it's not like had a choice! - while Russia has used only a part of its forces for the invasion. Now it's true that the forces that spearheaded the invasion were supposed to be the best trained and equipped ones, and other units that they'd have to bring would have more conscripts and be otherwise less effective. But a conscript is still better than no soldier at all! Then there's the "missing" Russian Air Force. And it's not just strategic bombing, but also ground support. The notion that they're incapable of any of this is just plain ridiculous, given what we've seen before in Syria. Now, Ukrainians do have much better AA than Syrian rebels, so Russian losses in the air would be high - but if they go all-in, it won't matter. So, the people who are dying defending Ukraine right now are basically buying time for the West to get over its fears and hesitations and truly help them. But, ironically, the ferocity of the defense led to the popular misconception that Ukraine can basically do it through grit alone. So I hope they do get help before it's too late, but I'm also pessimistic about it.
  - a0-prw 5y ago
    They won't get help in the form of military intervention. The US wants the war to drag on because it's bad for Russia, but there is no way they will risk their own skin in a nuclear war. Ukrainians are discovering what Kurds, Afghans, Georgians and South Vietnamese learned: It is more dangerous to be buddies with the US, than to be their enemies.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      That's exactly why I'm pessimistic. The real problem is that once nuclear threats work, it's unclear why Russia should stop using them. For example, they now have a major security problem with Kaliningrad being an exclave - it's completely surrounded by unfriendly countries, and now even air cannot be reliably used to supply it; only shipping via the Baltic, which is itself a route that's easy to threaten. So suppose they demand that Lithuania gives them a land corridor from Belarus to Kaliningrad, or else? Lithuania is a NATO member, and would, of course, invoke Article 5 - but would Americans be willing to risk their own skin in a nuclear war for the sake of Lithuania anymore so than they did for the sake of Ukraine, regardless of NATO membership? OTOH it's also unclear why Russia should respond with nukes to a conventional intervention in Ukraine. Worst case, they lose Ukraine; is that worth a nuclear war in which they lose Russia itself? Mind you, this is assuming that Putin is rational, which is itself questionable. But if he's truly insane, then only he knows if and when he's going to press that button, and all these attempts to guess what not to do to prevent him from doing so are very likely to be futile in the long run.
baal80spam 5y ago
Good and important post but why oh why so many blogs insist on typefaces that are barely visible/legible?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  It's scaled up to 1.6rem. The problem is user agents that don't support accessible font scaling.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dkbrk 5y ago
    The problem is contrast, not scale.
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
I think this comparison is a worthwhile effort, but it also should be kept in mind that any kind of aggression, large or small, personal or political, evokes reactions and emotions from a relatively small pool, and the words to describe these emotions are also from a relatively small pool - which means headline similarities may not be any kind of portent of doom. The underlying point, however, and the initial quote of the article, remain pertinent: "Those Who Cannot Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
IAmGraydon 5y ago
While interesting, this ignores the differences between the current situation and WWII. It’s clearly trying to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. For example, when Poland was invaded, Britain and France immediately declared war on Germany. Where is this parallel?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 988747 5y ago
  Biden saying the US will defend every square inch of NATO territory?
  - IAmGraydon 5y ago
    Do you think Russia has invaded a NATO nation?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Which Ukraine isn't. So what's the parallel again? Your statement makes Ukraine parallel to Czechoslovakia, not Poland.
- bobthechef 5y ago
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I think the point here is to draw parallels between what may be Russia's longer term intentions. Clearly the current scope of conflict is not the same, and an isomorphic 1-to-1 mapping of the details of those times to this situation isn't intended.
harry8 5y ago
1. We do not want war. 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war. 3. The enemy has the face of the devil. 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests. 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary. 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons. 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause. 9. Our cause has a sacred nature. 10. Those who question our statements are traitors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_Propaganda https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_... Don't kid yourself that is not happening now, as it did in 1914, 1939, 2003 and countless other times. Noticing its existence is not support for anything at all. Whatever our feelings about it all we should be asking "How is this different to our feelings about how we thought the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would play out and how they actually did?" The stakes are really quite high.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I'm not sure if this was your intent, but you describe very well what Russia is telling its own people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mjevans 5y ago
  > 1. We do not want war. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, the world did nothing of consequence which emboldened the aggressor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations#Annexation_of_Crimea_and_war_in_eastern_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relatio... > 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war. Aside from good countries and people turning a blind eye and doing nothing; yes. Russia is clearly responsible for the aggression and (presumed guilty in the court of media coverage) warcrimes (yet to be tried and found guilty anywhere; but the gears of law are slow and this official designation will likely happen after the war). > 3. The enemy has the face of the devil. No comment, but I don't think anyone believes the average soldier on either side is this. > 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests. As if anyone could ever drop 'particular interests' in any action that could border on the next world war or the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (Russia's nukes). > 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary. Some occasional error? Maybe mistakes. Repeated attacks on civilian targets? Not mistakes. > 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons. We hope not, thus far the really bad ones haven't been covered, at least just yet. > 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. We, the general West, have so far not been involved in the fighting. Those who are involved seem to both be taking unfortunate losses. > 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause. > 9. Our cause has a sacred nature. To make the world a better place with more freedoms and personal liberties, quality and safety of life, and less war-mongering dictators? > 10. Those who question our statements are traitors. Which statements are in question? You and others are all free to do so in the society I live in. While I have heard that laws in Russia have 'consequences' for the dissemination of facts and opinions the government disagrees with. Some of the cases have been light. Many protestors have been arrested though.
throwawaycities 5y ago
There have been numerous articles suggesting Putin miscalculated, had bad intel, and was surrounded by “yes-men.” The crux being Putin can’t stop now even if he wanted because it would make him look weak. They are all dancing around one of the most prolific war-time headline phrases, almost like the media is purposely holding off on using it until it’s been sufficiently built up before dropping it. I predict we will begin to see very shortly and hear endlessly on the 24/7 news cycle: Ukraine is an intractable quagmire for Putin. The media has used the phrase intractable quagmire to describe Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Its like a right of passage for every new generation of media covering a conflict.
- BipolarCapybara 5y ago
  To be honest, this conflict resembles some similarity with the Afghan invasion, just the Soviet one
- Angostura 5y ago
  > Its like a right of passage for every new generation of media covering a conflict. More like a rite of passage for every occupying force.
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    Maybe, but in the 8 years of Russia occupying Crimea the media never called Ukraine an intractable quagmire for Russia, they mostly ignored it.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  All of those putin stories are coming from either shady tweets or outright ukrainian propaganda. And I doubt ukrainian state media has access to putin's personal feelings. Now don't get me wrong, it's necessary propaganda and it's war. But it's incredible to me that people actually what amount to fan fiction. Like seriously, no ukrainian I've talked with believes those far fetched but very convenient story. They know it's a war and propaganda is part of the war effort but they don't actually believe it themselves. I've only seen westerners eat those stories and craft their own lore around it. I guess we forgot about the supposed military coup to overthrow putin, him hiding in the Ural in fear of his life, the military units that were about to defect... 2 weeks ago. At the end of the day, it does not matter even if it was true. We need to focus on helping ukraine and actually stay tethered to the reality on the ground and concrete actions we can do. There is a war on the ground, and for all intents and purposes there is absolutely 0 way for us to know about the inner dynamics of the Kremlin that wouldn't be completely tainted by propaganda.
chrisco255 5y ago
Headlines from a more recent war: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/the-iraq-war-timeline-as-told-through-front-pages https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/the-ira...
- lelandfe 5y ago
  It pains me to say that I got swept up in that zeal for war. Rereading some of these bloodthirsty headlines is tough. I occasionally revisit Jon Stewart's 2015 interview of Judith Miller for some light catharsis: https://www.cc.com/video/o05yhi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive-judith-miller-extended-interview-pt-1 https://www.cc.com/video/o05yhi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew...
yrgulation 5y ago
Here is another sad similarity: “After the attacks […] Another 100,000 Poles became refugees in Romania and were received with sympathy by the Romanian public.” https://hi-storylessons.eu/events/the-polish-government-treasury-and-refugees-in-romania/ https://hi-storylessons.eu/events/the-polish-government-trea...
dataflow 5y ago
Shouldn't nuclear weapons enter the calculation somewhere?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Maybe it's wishful thinking, but that seems unlikely. A tactical nuke to level a city would best be deployed to reduce morale, induce terror to get major concessions at the negotiating table. (It couldn't really be used to reduce Ukraine military, they aren't concentrated enough for that. But a tactic like this could make Ukrainians even angrier, not demoralized. Could go either way. Regardless, any nuclear launch would have the effect of galvanizing support far beyond the current level. It would probably also strip them of Chinese support because extreme sanctions would fall on anyone providing the least bit of support to Russia, and a massive economic blow to China hurts them more than it would hurt most other countries (though it would still hurt). If course the above is predicated upon a rational weighing of consequences, and I shouldn't assume rationality by Putin. But enough people in power may still be rational enough to stage a coup if he truly approaches nuclear war. Or so I hope. A few months from now I might remember this comment and how naive it was.
  - djhn 5y ago
    While definitions can be fuzzy, in Russian doctrine a "tactical nuke" would refer to something you fire "in battle", from artillery range, and does not carry enough payload to level a city. It also makes sense on the abstract level. Leveling a city is not a tactic, it is a strategy-level move.
fffobar 5y ago
The southern front isn't going well for Ukraine at all, and I do not see what could change the outcome there, short of NATO forces joining the fight. If the southern front is done the invasion could resume on the other fronts, as well as continue in the south. Not hearing enough about this reminds me of the overly cheerful propaganda, the same sort as mentioned in these headlines.
- trasz 5y ago
  The southern front is the only one where Russians are making any progress, and near Kiyv there’s already been successful counterattacks.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I guess the question is what happens if Russia wins in the south and can retask those resources to help near Kyiv or other hold outs. Especially if/when rumored groups of soldiers from Syria & Belarus enter the conflict. I also don't see Russia backing down without some type of agreement that cedes territory or other significant concessions to them, which sets up a sort of moral hazzard. Then, a few years from now Russia does this sort of thing again. It would feel like the sort of appeasement policy used with Germany leading up to WWII. I don't see a good way around that possibility that doesn't risk a huge escalation. Actually I may see one very imperfect option: Cede Crimea and maybe other concessions to Russia in exchange for and agreement of neutrality backed by allowing a very large build up if Ukrainian military power, and a guarantee of support from the West, to significantly deter Russia from doing this again. At the same time that specific and severe sanctions beyond what we've seen already will be rapidly implemented if Russia tries this with any other country. Even this is problematic, and probably unrealistic that Russia would agree to it. And so it just comes down to how long Ukraine can hold out, or how strong of an insurgency they can mount for the long term & what price Russia is willing to pay (eventually they cut their losses in Afghanistan). But Russia probably decides that if they can't have Ukraine then then they'll destroy every city and as much infrastructure as possible on their way out (hints of that already) It is truly hard for me to see any positive outcome here that is as likely as any of the many bad possible outcomes. Maybe if Putin's purges of political leadership cause then to launch a coup in self defense? Waging war among that chaos would be hard, and the West could negotiate with new leadership about getting out of Ukraine in exchange for lifting some of the sanctions.
pasquinelli 5y ago
manholio 5y ago
I would like to see a similar comparison between the Russian state media and the treatment of the Iraq war by US media in the first years. Almost all Russian propaganda staples have direct correspondents: - Denazification and demilitarization -> ending Saddam's support for terrorism and Al Qaeda - Biological and nuclear dirty weapons -> Weapons of mass destruction - Saving the people of Donbas -> Human rights abuses by the Saddam Regime, Iraqi freedom - Special operation -> Military action (but in very short order, US media started calling it an invasion) I'm not saying the situations are similar, they are clearly not, but the strong similarity speaks volumes about the constraints under which wartime propaganda operates. The US media, retaining its freedom, eventually recovered on the issue of WMDs and other biased points of view, the Russians will probably not.
- trasz 5y ago
  Number one difference is that US forces didn’t focus on killing random civilians instead of military.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    This is just revisionism. The US had better optics and narratives, but they sure did not shy of destroying urban areas to save their soldiers. Just look at fallujah.
    - trasz 5y ago
      Again - the difference is that Russians are doing this instead of fighting the Ukrainian army, as opposed to a collateral damage. What US has done was a crime, but Russian actions are even worse. And most of all: what has happened, it happened. What matters is what’s happening right now, because we can still change it.
      - mardifoufs 5y ago
        The ukrainian army is in the cities too though, it's collateral damage. If their objective was just to terrorize or genocide the ukrainians they would not restrict themselves to bombing cities that are currently part of the front. I agree to some extent on the last part, right now is more important but it does not mean we have to whitewash the past. I didn't bring up the US, but even the current events do not justify historical revisionism. You can denounce what's happening now without saying it's worse than what our side did before.
fbanLq 5y ago
shmerl 5y ago
Very on point. It's bizarre some fail to draw these clear historic parallels. To put it simply - Putin will never stop until he is stopped. Also note his recent speech - it's basically Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.
- 3np 5y ago
  Do you have to the recent speech with subs? Finding it harder and harder to find unabridged and uneditorialized versions.
  - shmerl 5y ago
    I'd rather not link such toxic waste. Those who need it for historic research can find it.
    - 3np 5y ago
      So you are asking us to note the recent speech but not to watch it...? I spent a short time searching for his recent speeches recently but came up short. The best I found was short clips with newscast voiceovers. I do think it's dangerous to just rely on second- or third-hand summaries, no matter how terrible the message.
      - shmerl 5y ago
        Search for "Putin's speech. Concert marking the anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia". I agree that in this case it can be dangerous to rely on official sources though :)
      - a0-prw 5y ago
        Hang on, I can find a link to the RT video of it with subtitles in my YT history ... ... oh, wait
8bitsrule 5y ago
In Sep 1939, after their pact, both Germany and USSR invaded Poland. One early USSR action (denied by the USSR until 1990) was "a series of mass executions of nearly 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia carried out by the Soviet Union, specifically the NKVD.... which was approved by the Soviet Politburo led by Stalin" known as the Katyn massacre. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre] The Nazis pointed it out in 1943, the USSR blamed it on the Nazis. The (non-Russian) Allies played down the fact at the time. (Churchill is quoted as writing 'we should none of us ever speak a word about it.') It seems hard to believe that with modern tech everywhere, such an act could happen again. Not so hard to believe that the same is true of a cover-up.
mike_k 5y ago
This is not only about current headlines, it is the very same list of hybrid war tactics shared by two figures. https://texty.org.ua/articles/105990/putler_en/ https://texty.org.ua/articles/105990/putler_en/ Originally published: 21 December 2018. Translated into English: March 2022. It looks like history have taught us almost nothing.
a0-prw 5y ago
From Russia's perspective, they are pre-emptively preventing the further expansion of NATO towards their borders. For Russia, NATO expansion to the East looks like the build up to an invasion. Hey, I don't say they're right, but they have experienced two major invasions from the West before. (Three if you count the Swedish one). It's pretty clear that they meant it seriously in 2007 in Munich that they would not tolerate it. Perhaps, just perhaps, the West has not acted wisely.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
  Ironic that actions meant to pre-emptively prevent further expansion of NATO will likely result not only in further expansion of NATO but of strengthening of militaries in countries already part of NATO. Of all of the reasons put forth by various sources over why this is happening, the simplest is often the correct one (not always, but often), which is that Putin just wanted Ukraine back in his (i.e. Russia's) embrace. And nobody says no to Putin.
  - a0-prw 5y ago
    Where is NATO going to expand to after Russia wins in Ukraine? This war changes everything. The most likely outcome is a massive, resource-rich Eurasian bloc with China as its center of gravity, with increasing influence in the (also resource-rich) developing world against a fading, culturally decadent, resource-poor West. This bs situation is terrible for the West. America will be different, but can survive. Europe will be absolutely fucked.
- stared 5y ago
  Let me repeat: Ukraine is a sovereign country. It can look West, East, or neither. Furthermore, countries apply to join NATO rather than are being incorporated by force. It is neocolonialist to think that Ukraine is just a pawn between NATO and Russia. Justifying the Russian attack goes the same way as "because her skirt was too short... oh, no, no - it wasn't her fault but of society, which lets women dress like that". It's always the aggressor's fault, full stop. For a comparison, NATO didn't perform a land invasion on Belarus when it became a Russian vassal state.

116 points by stared 5y ago

It's shocking how much delusion around the world there was about Poland being able to defend itself against Hitler's invasion. Are we similarly deluding ourselves about Ukraine?

nickff 5y ago
Poland was completely conquered in 5 weeks (35 days), after having been attacked from two sides (by Germany and the Soviet Union). We are currently 26 days into this war, and Ukraine is holding up much better. This map shows how far the Germans got in two weeks, and it's much more than what the Russians have done so far in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg
- epolanski 5y ago
  German invasion involved a much larger army. Germans invaded with 1.5M infantry soldiers alone. Russia barely has 15k, 100 times less, right now in Ukraine, most are mechanized. The scale of the war is immensely different. edit: I know there's a higher estimated Russian count but it's not infantry.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - yrgulation 5y ago
    Russia has at least 150k troops in Ukraine and the estimate doesn't include those from Syria and Chechnya.
    - epolanski 5y ago
      And of those a small part is infantry as I said, mostly those are mechanized units.
      - yrgulation 5y ago
        Thanks for the clarification - do you have a link to detailed stats about the invading army? Cant find a detailed breakdown.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    The number would be closer to 100 000 russian soldiers according to the pentagon, with 70-80% of it engaged inside ukraine already. But yes that's still just a fraction of the total russian army, and the ukrainian army had very similar numbers on the ground at the start of the war. So it's not equivalent to ww2 at all. But yes, the current situation is actually very different to WW2 with even the few similarities being at most superficial. But every war is compared to WW2 since it's a nice way to push for escalation under the pretext of stopping the next hitler. Yet WW1 is almost always a more appropriate example, but a pretty inconvenient one since it does not fit into war mongering narratives. Because I'm just not sure that saving serbia back in 1914 was really worth the lives of 10 million people in hindsight.
- lumost 5y ago
  The invasion of Poland was much bloodier than is often recalled. The Germans and Soviets invaded with 2 million soldiers and incurred 59 thousand casualties. The Russians are conducting direct combat operations with every major Ukrainian city except for Lviv and Odessa. The center of Ukraine is largely farmland and small villages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- sb057 5y ago
  Keep in mind that while the popular conception of WWII is as a mechanized war, everyone (especially the fuel-starved Germans) was still incredibly reliant on foot and horse-based movement. I don't believe the German army even had experimental APCs at the start of the war. The commonly cited number for how fast a traditional army can march is 20 miles per day, unopposed. The BTR-80 is rated for 50 miles per hour. Obviously APCs have to deal with refueling and maintenance and the like, but surely a modern mechanized army shouldn't moving slower than a comparable unmechanized one from 80 years ago.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- IAmGraydon 5y ago
  Actually, Poland was defeated in 26 days. The invasion started on Sept 1 and concluded on Sept 27.
- explaingarlic 5y ago
  It's extremely misleading, that sort of map view of a war like liveuamap tries to create. There is going to be no attempt to defend farmland, little towns or villages etc. The fact is that the administrative and economic centres of Ukraine are Ukraine. Once they are under Russian control, there is very little anyone can do. The sort-of map view of a war is too flawed. It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc. - and it lends itself nicely to video games (which, let's face it, are most people's only experience of grand strategy and warfare). It's just not how warfare works, and the victory condition for the Russian army is maybe a month and a half away at current pace, by my estimation. The information in the map that you linked is meaningful for sure, but it neglects the details that actually determine any side's performance in the war - you cannot extract the war's velocity from it.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    “ It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc.” This seems to describe Ukraine after Russia destroyed the city center…
- lleb97a 5y ago
  How can you compare two wars 80 years apart given the advancements in nearly every area. Polish soldiers couldn't watch German soldiers moving around from the safety of a bunker via a phone screen. The available, basic intelligence alone could keep a war like this going for months. It's why I don't understand how it's happened. Wars like this - between modern countries - just should not exist as a matter of common sense (e.g. Mutual destruction theory).
- c0nducktr 5y ago
  Wars just don't happen as quick as they used to? It was 168 days from invasion to "First post-Saddam government" in 2003.
int_19h 5y ago
Based on what I'm seeing in mainstream Western press and especially memes that people share, yes. For starters, Russia lost ~10% of its forces so far - but so did Ukraine (side note: if seriously believe the figures that Ukrainian Ministry of Defense publishes for Russian casualties, I have a bridge to sell you). The difference is that Ukraine is already fully engaged - it's not like had a choice! - while Russia has used only a part of its forces for the invasion. Now it's true that the forces that spearheaded the invasion were supposed to be the best trained and equipped ones, and other units that they'd have to bring would have more conscripts and be otherwise less effective. But a conscript is still better than no soldier at all! Then there's the "missing" Russian Air Force. And it's not just strategic bombing, but also ground support. The notion that they're incapable of any of this is just plain ridiculous, given what we've seen before in Syria. Now, Ukrainians do have much better AA than Syrian rebels, so Russian losses in the air would be high - but if they go all-in, it won't matter. So, the people who are dying defending Ukraine right now are basically buying time for the West to get over its fears and hesitations and truly help them. But, ironically, the ferocity of the defense led to the popular misconception that Ukraine can basically do it through grit alone. So I hope they do get help before it's too late, but I'm also pessimistic about it.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  They won't get help in the form of military intervention. The US wants the war to drag on because it's bad for Russia, but there is no way they will risk their own skin in a nuclear war. Ukrainians are discovering what Kurds, Afghans, Georgians and South Vietnamese learned: It is more dangerous to be buddies with the US, than to be their enemies.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    That's exactly why I'm pessimistic. The real problem is that once nuclear threats work, it's unclear why Russia should stop using them. For example, they now have a major security problem with Kaliningrad being an exclave - it's completely surrounded by unfriendly countries, and now even air cannot be reliably used to supply it; only shipping via the Baltic, which is itself a route that's easy to threaten. So suppose they demand that Lithuania gives them a land corridor from Belarus to Kaliningrad, or else? Lithuania is a NATO member, and would, of course, invoke Article 5 - but would Americans be willing to risk their own skin in a nuclear war for the sake of Lithuania anymore so than they did for the sake of Ukraine, regardless of NATO membership? OTOH it's also unclear why Russia should respond with nukes to a conventional intervention in Ukraine. Worst case, they lose Ukraine; is that worth a nuclear war in which they lose Russia itself? Mind you, this is assuming that Putin is rational, which is itself questionable. But if he's truly insane, then only he knows if and when he's going to press that button, and all these attempts to guess what not to do to prevent him from doing so are very likely to be futile in the long run.

baal80spam 5y ago

Good and important post but why oh why so many blogs insist on typefaces that are barely visible/legible?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
It's scaled up to 1.6rem. The problem is user agents that don't support accessible font scaling.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dkbrk 5y ago
  The problem is contrast, not scale.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

I think this comparison is a worthwhile effort, but it also should be kept in mind that any kind of aggression, large or small, personal or political, evokes reactions and emotions from a relatively small pool, and the words to describe these emotions are also from a relatively small pool - which means headline similarities may not be any kind of portent of doom. The underlying point, however, and the initial quote of the article, remain pertinent: "Those Who Cannot Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It"

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

IAmGraydon 5y ago

While interesting, this ignores the differences between the current situation and WWII. It’s clearly trying to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. For example, when Poland was invaded, Britain and France immediately declared war on Germany. Where is this parallel?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
988747 5y ago
Biden saying the US will defend every square inch of NATO territory?
- IAmGraydon 5y ago
  Do you think Russia has invaded a NATO nation?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Which Ukraine isn't. So what's the parallel again? Your statement makes Ukraine parallel to Czechoslovakia, not Poland.
bobthechef 5y ago
ineedasername 5y ago
I think the point here is to draw parallels between what may be Russia's longer term intentions. Clearly the current scope of conflict is not the same, and an isomorphic 1-to-1 mapping of the details of those times to this situation isn't intended.

harry8 5y ago

1. We do not want war. 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war. 3. The enemy has the face of the devil. 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests. 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary. 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons. 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause. 9. Our cause has a sacred nature. 10. Those who question our statements are traitors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_Propaganda https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_... Don't kid yourself that is not happening now, as it did in 1914, 1939, 2003 and countless other times. Noticing its existence is not support for anything at all. Whatever our feelings about it all we should be asking "How is this different to our feelings about how we thought the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would play out and how they actually did?" The stakes are really quite high.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I'm not sure if this was your intent, but you describe very well what Russia is telling its own people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mjevans 5y ago
> 1. We do not want war. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, the world did nothing of consequence which emboldened the aggressor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations#Annexation_of_Crimea_and_war_in_eastern_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relatio... > 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war. Aside from good countries and people turning a blind eye and doing nothing; yes. Russia is clearly responsible for the aggression and (presumed guilty in the court of media coverage) warcrimes (yet to be tried and found guilty anywhere; but the gears of law are slow and this official designation will likely happen after the war). > 3. The enemy has the face of the devil. No comment, but I don't think anyone believes the average soldier on either side is this. > 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests. As if anyone could ever drop 'particular interests' in any action that could border on the next world war or the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (Russia's nukes). > 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary. Some occasional error? Maybe mistakes. Repeated attacks on civilian targets? Not mistakes. > 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons. We hope not, thus far the really bad ones haven't been covered, at least just yet. > 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous. We, the general West, have so far not been involved in the fighting. Those who are involved seem to both be taking unfortunate losses. > 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause. > 9. Our cause has a sacred nature. To make the world a better place with more freedoms and personal liberties, quality and safety of life, and less war-mongering dictators? > 10. Those who question our statements are traitors. Which statements are in question? You and others are all free to do so in the society I live in. While I have heard that laws in Russia have 'consequences' for the dissemination of facts and opinions the government disagrees with. Some of the cases have been light. Many protestors have been arrested though.

throwawaycities 5y ago

There have been numerous articles suggesting Putin miscalculated, had bad intel, and was surrounded by “yes-men.” The crux being Putin can’t stop now even if he wanted because it would make him look weak. They are all dancing around one of the most prolific war-time headline phrases, almost like the media is purposely holding off on using it until it’s been sufficiently built up before dropping it. I predict we will begin to see very shortly and hear endlessly on the 24/7 news cycle: Ukraine is an intractable quagmire for Putin. The media has used the phrase intractable quagmire to describe Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Its like a right of passage for every new generation of media covering a conflict.

BipolarCapybara 5y ago
To be honest, this conflict resembles some similarity with the Afghan invasion, just the Soviet one
Angostura 5y ago
> Its like a right of passage for every new generation of media covering a conflict. More like a rite of passage for every occupying force.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  Maybe, but in the 8 years of Russia occupying Crimea the media never called Ukraine an intractable quagmire for Russia, they mostly ignored it.
mardifoufs 5y ago
All of those putin stories are coming from either shady tweets or outright ukrainian propaganda. And I doubt ukrainian state media has access to putin's personal feelings. Now don't get me wrong, it's necessary propaganda and it's war. But it's incredible to me that people actually what amount to fan fiction. Like seriously, no ukrainian I've talked with believes those far fetched but very convenient story. They know it's a war and propaganda is part of the war effort but they don't actually believe it themselves. I've only seen westerners eat those stories and craft their own lore around it. I guess we forgot about the supposed military coup to overthrow putin, him hiding in the Ural in fear of his life, the military units that were about to defect... 2 weeks ago. At the end of the day, it does not matter even if it was true. We need to focus on helping ukraine and actually stay tethered to the reality on the ground and concrete actions we can do. There is a war on the ground, and for all intents and purposes there is absolutely 0 way for us to know about the inner dynamics of the Kremlin that wouldn't be completely tainted by propaganda.

chrisco255 5y ago

Headlines from a more recent war: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/the-iraq-war-timeline-as-told-through-front-pages https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/the-ira...

lelandfe 5y ago
It pains me to say that I got swept up in that zeal for war. Rereading some of these bloodthirsty headlines is tough. I occasionally revisit Jon Stewart's 2015 interview of Judith Miller for some light catharsis: https://www.cc.com/video/o05yhi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive-judith-miller-extended-interview-pt-1 https://www.cc.com/video/o05yhi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew...

yrgulation 5y ago

Here is another sad similarity: “After the attacks […] Another 100,000 Poles became refugees in Romania and were received with sympathy by the Romanian public.” https://hi-storylessons.eu/events/the-polish-government-treasury-and-refugees-in-romania/ https://hi-storylessons.eu/events/the-polish-government-trea...

dataflow 5y ago

Shouldn't nuclear weapons enter the calculation somewhere?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ineedasername 5y ago
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but that seems unlikely. A tactical nuke to level a city would best be deployed to reduce morale, induce terror to get major concessions at the negotiating table. (It couldn't really be used to reduce Ukraine military, they aren't concentrated enough for that. But a tactic like this could make Ukrainians even angrier, not demoralized. Could go either way. Regardless, any nuclear launch would have the effect of galvanizing support far beyond the current level. It would probably also strip them of Chinese support because extreme sanctions would fall on anyone providing the least bit of support to Russia, and a massive economic blow to China hurts them more than it would hurt most other countries (though it would still hurt). If course the above is predicated upon a rational weighing of consequences, and I shouldn't assume rationality by Putin. But enough people in power may still be rational enough to stage a coup if he truly approaches nuclear war. Or so I hope. A few months from now I might remember this comment and how naive it was.
- djhn 5y ago
  While definitions can be fuzzy, in Russian doctrine a "tactical nuke" would refer to something you fire "in battle", from artillery range, and does not carry enough payload to level a city. It also makes sense on the abstract level. Leveling a city is not a tactic, it is a strategy-level move.

fffobar 5y ago

The southern front isn't going well for Ukraine at all, and I do not see what could change the outcome there, short of NATO forces joining the fight. If the southern front is done the invasion could resume on the other fronts, as well as continue in the south. Not hearing enough about this reminds me of the overly cheerful propaganda, the same sort as mentioned in these headlines.

trasz 5y ago
The southern front is the only one where Russians are making any progress, and near Kiyv there’s already been successful counterattacks.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I guess the question is what happens if Russia wins in the south and can retask those resources to help near Kyiv or other hold outs. Especially if/when rumored groups of soldiers from Syria & Belarus enter the conflict. I also don't see Russia backing down without some type of agreement that cedes territory or other significant concessions to them, which sets up a sort of moral hazzard. Then, a few years from now Russia does this sort of thing again. It would feel like the sort of appeasement policy used with Germany leading up to WWII. I don't see a good way around that possibility that doesn't risk a huge escalation. Actually I may see one very imperfect option: Cede Crimea and maybe other concessions to Russia in exchange for and agreement of neutrality backed by allowing a very large build up if Ukrainian military power, and a guarantee of support from the West, to significantly deter Russia from doing this again. At the same time that specific and severe sanctions beyond what we've seen already will be rapidly implemented if Russia tries this with any other country. Even this is problematic, and probably unrealistic that Russia would agree to it. And so it just comes down to how long Ukraine can hold out, or how strong of an insurgency they can mount for the long term & what price Russia is willing to pay (eventually they cut their losses in Afghanistan). But Russia probably decides that if they can't have Ukraine then then they'll destroy every city and as much infrastructure as possible on their way out (hints of that already) It is truly hard for me to see any positive outcome here that is as likely as any of the many bad possible outcomes. Maybe if Putin's purges of political leadership cause then to launch a coup in self defense? Waging war among that chaos would be hard, and the West could negotiate with new leadership about getting out of Ukraine in exchange for lifting some of the sanctions.

pasquinelli 5y ago

manholio 5y ago

I would like to see a similar comparison between the Russian state media and the treatment of the Iraq war by US media in the first years. Almost all Russian propaganda staples have direct correspondents: - Denazification and demilitarization -> ending Saddam's support for terrorism and Al Qaeda - Biological and nuclear dirty weapons -> Weapons of mass destruction - Saving the people of Donbas -> Human rights abuses by the Saddam Regime, Iraqi freedom - Special operation -> Military action (but in very short order, US media started calling it an invasion) I'm not saying the situations are similar, they are clearly not, but the strong similarity speaks volumes about the constraints under which wartime propaganda operates. The US media, retaining its freedom, eventually recovered on the issue of WMDs and other biased points of view, the Russians will probably not.

trasz 5y ago
Number one difference is that US forces didn’t focus on killing random civilians instead of military.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  This is just revisionism. The US had better optics and narratives, but they sure did not shy of destroying urban areas to save their soldiers. Just look at fallujah.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Again - the difference is that Russians are doing this instead of fighting the Ukrainian army, as opposed to a collateral damage. What US has done was a crime, but Russian actions are even worse. And most of all: what has happened, it happened. What matters is what’s happening right now, because we can still change it.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      The ukrainian army is in the cities too though, it's collateral damage. If their objective was just to terrorize or genocide the ukrainians they would not restrict themselves to bombing cities that are currently part of the front. I agree to some extent on the last part, right now is more important but it does not mean we have to whitewash the past. I didn't bring up the US, but even the current events do not justify historical revisionism. You can denounce what's happening now without saying it's worse than what our side did before.

fbanLq 5y ago

shmerl 5y ago

Very on point. It's bizarre some fail to draw these clear historic parallels. To put it simply - Putin will never stop until he is stopped. Also note his recent speech - it's basically Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.

3np 5y ago
Do you have to the recent speech with subs? Finding it harder and harder to find unabridged and uneditorialized versions.
- shmerl 5y ago
  I'd rather not link such toxic waste. Those who need it for historic research can find it.
  - 3np 5y ago
    So you are asking us to note the recent speech but not to watch it...? I spent a short time searching for his recent speeches recently but came up short. The best I found was short clips with newscast voiceovers. I do think it's dangerous to just rely on second- or third-hand summaries, no matter how terrible the message.
    - shmerl 5y ago
      Search for "Putin's speech. Concert marking the anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia". I agree that in this case it can be dangerous to rely on official sources though :)
    - a0-prw 5y ago
      Hang on, I can find a link to the RT video of it with subtitles in my YT history ... ... oh, wait

8bitsrule 5y ago

In Sep 1939, after their pact, both Germany and USSR invaded Poland. One early USSR action (denied by the USSR until 1990) was "a series of mass executions of nearly 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia carried out by the Soviet Union, specifically the NKVD.... which was approved by the Soviet Politburo led by Stalin" known as the Katyn massacre. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre] The Nazis pointed it out in 1943, the USSR blamed it on the Nazis. The (non-Russian) Allies played down the fact at the time. (Churchill is quoted as writing 'we should none of us ever speak a word about it.') It seems hard to believe that with modern tech everywhere, such an act could happen again. Not so hard to believe that the same is true of a cover-up.

mike_k 5y ago

This is not only about current headlines, it is the very same list of hybrid war tactics shared by two figures. https://texty.org.ua/articles/105990/putler_en/ https://texty.org.ua/articles/105990/putler_en/ Originally published: 21 December 2018. Translated into English: March 2022. It looks like history have taught us almost nothing.

a0-prw 5y ago

From Russia's perspective, they are pre-emptively preventing the further expansion of NATO towards their borders. For Russia, NATO expansion to the East looks like the build up to an invasion. Hey, I don't say they're right, but they have experienced two major invasions from the West before. (Three if you count the Swedish one). It's pretty clear that they meant it seriously in 2007 in Munich that they would not tolerate it. Perhaps, just perhaps, the West has not acted wisely.

Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
Ironic that actions meant to pre-emptively prevent further expansion of NATO will likely result not only in further expansion of NATO but of strengthening of militaries in countries already part of NATO. Of all of the reasons put forth by various sources over why this is happening, the simplest is often the correct one (not always, but often), which is that Putin just wanted Ukraine back in his (i.e. Russia's) embrace. And nobody says no to Putin.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  Where is NATO going to expand to after Russia wins in Ukraine? This war changes everything. The most likely outcome is a massive, resource-rich Eurasian bloc with China as its center of gravity, with increasing influence in the (also resource-rich) developing world against a fading, culturally decadent, resource-poor West. This bs situation is terrible for the West. America will be different, but can survive. Europe will be absolutely fucked.
stared 5y ago
Let me repeat: Ukraine is a sovereign country. It can look West, East, or neither. Furthermore, countries apply to join NATO rather than are being incorporated by force. It is neocolonialist to think that Ukraine is just a pawn between NATO and Russia. Justifying the Russian attack goes the same way as "because her skirt was too short... oh, no, no - it wasn't her fault but of society, which lets women dress like that". It's always the aggressor's fault, full stop. For a comparison, NATO didn't perform a land invasion on Belarus when it became a Russian vassal state.