3 ms·

Has it occurred to you that Soviet and Chinese primary sources are less readily available? Far less, almost to the point of impossibility. It's not like those g

Has it occurred to you that Soviet and Chinese primary sources are less readily available? Far less, almost to the point of impossibility. It's not like those governments were forthcoming about anything for decades afterward. Also what, exactly, would adding those change about his essential point regarding the horrors of war and how they're portrayed? Did Chinese or Soviet bodies blow up differently? Immediacy and authenticity were essential to the themes he was addressing, so he used the most suitable sources available to him. What's wrong with that? Turning this into an argument about "credit" for who "won" the war seems more than a bit distasteful (especially while war is being fought over the very ground you're so quick to treat as a game board), and also beside the point.

eduction 4y ago
I know (and can see from this thread) that emotions run high around anything touching on the ex USSR but I don’t think the current war in Ukraine is at all germane to this article from 1989 about ww2 (or to the content of my posts on HN about it).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notacoward 4y ago
  It's just as germane as turning a story about the (almost universal) horrors of war into some kind of scorekeeping exercise, and nobody's showing more emotion than you. Why don't you try addressing my main point about accessibility and incremental value of primary sources, instead of picking one literally parenthetical comment to quibble about? It's the same thing you did with OP: sniping instead of engaging. Contrary to guidelines BTW. Please try to do better.
  - eduction 4y ago
    Missed this at the time. Belated thoughts: Hmm. I didn't address the point about primary sources because it didn't seem like the main point. Right after you brought that issue up, the next sentence seemed to cast aside the importance of the issue: "Also what, exactly, would adding those [sources] change about his essential point..." I wasn't sure the key point, and the last sentence seemed to be the most likely crux of what you were saying, but maybe I misread. Maybe you're right about the sources, I can't claim to have looked for books or papers by ex Soviet soldiers. Although given how many Soviet soldiers there were, and given the USSR's incentives to highlight German brutality, are you sure on this score that there are not raw recollections of brutal war in USSR in ww2? Anyway, I think a piece by the same author without such a sweeping and judgmental title ("real" is a very loaded word in this context that, as I've said, I don't think is earned here) would work just as well.

eduction 4y ago

I know (and can see from this thread) that emotions run high around anything touching on the ex USSR but I don’t think the current war in Ukraine is at all germane to this article from 1989 about ww2 (or to the content of my posts on HN about it).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notacoward 4y ago
It's just as germane as turning a story about the (almost universal) horrors of war into some kind of scorekeeping exercise, and nobody's showing more emotion than you. Why don't you try addressing my main point about accessibility and incremental value of primary sources, instead of picking one literally parenthetical comment to quibble about? It's the same thing you did with OP: sniping instead of engaging. Contrary to guidelines BTW. Please try to do better.
- eduction 4y ago
  Missed this at the time. Belated thoughts: Hmm. I didn't address the point about primary sources because it didn't seem like the main point. Right after you brought that issue up, the next sentence seemed to cast aside the importance of the issue: "Also what, exactly, would adding those [sources] change about his essential point..." I wasn't sure the key point, and the last sentence seemed to be the most likely crux of what you were saying, but maybe I misread. Maybe you're right about the sources, I can't claim to have looked for books or papers by ex Soviet soldiers. Although given how many Soviet soldiers there were, and given the USSR's incentives to highlight German brutality, are you sure on this score that there are not raw recollections of brutal war in USSR in ww2? Anyway, I think a piece by the same author without such a sweeping and judgmental title ("real" is a very loaded word in this context that, as I've said, I don't think is earned here) would work just as well.