Great Heros! Geh!

[InsaneApache]

Not stupid - uneducated.

It suits governments of modern democracies to minimise the education of their citizens whilst manipulating the information they to which they do have access. Thus, government by sound bite and celebrity culture becomes ever more possible, and a populace untrained in debate and thought easily confused to the point of apathy.

Putin's nurturing of the myth of Stalin is merely a few steps along the road from what already occurs in much of the West. A dumb, blonde clothes horse is as effective a "hero" for the consumerist UK as the hard, ruthless, end-justifies-the-means "hero" is for the KGB-led Russia.

Education is perhaps the most important right of all, after the right to life. Yet how far down government's budget priorities - far below war, bankers, and "security" - do we see it every year?

Ironically, Soviet Russia had a world-leading education system, the recipients of which were repressed from exploiting. Now the citizenry has some kind of democracy, the state education system has been left to rot into a pitiful condition.

Perhaps this is the natural end-state of liberal democracy. By definition, government seeks to govern, and rarely recognises the concept of limits to its power.

Another nail hit squarely on it's head. Great post. I'm utterly appalled at the lack of education the young 'uns get these days. In fact it's bordering on criminal. The best bit is that the government is touting the rise in GCSE results as a vindication of it's education policies, when in fact what in reality is happening is that the pupils are acheiving even more worthless pieces of paper.

When 20-25% of school leavers are functionally illiterate and innumerate it should be a badge of shame, not celebration.

Anyway, not wanting to hi-jack the thread, I'll take JAGs advice and shut up.

[Banquo's Ghost]

When 20-25% of school leavers are functionally illiterate ...

Including myself, it appears.

[Watchman]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

[Ironside]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

Thankfully, with what appears to become the new history book at Russian schools (it's in the draft sended to the teachers), they don't need to longer ignore that little detail. To ignore things, you actually need to heard about them first...

[CrossLOPER]

Thankfully, with what appears to become the new history book at Russian schools (it's in the draft sended to the teachers), they don't need to longer ignore that little detail. To ignore things, you actually need to heard about them first...

Not quite sure with what you are trying to say, but let's be frank. How many general history books have you come across that went into great detail of every single key figure?

[Ironside]

Not quite sure with what you are trying to say, but let's be frank. How many general history books have you come across that went into great detail of every single key figure?

Well, they usually doesn't contain lines indicating that Stalin's purges improved the efficiency. From what I understand, it goes downward from there (can't read russian os only second hand sources).

I'm refering to "The Modern History of Russia 1945-2006. A teachers guide" (Novejsjaja istorija Rossii 1945-2006 gg. Kniga dlja utjitelja), by Aleksandr Filippov and History of Russia and the World in the 20th Century, by Nikita Zagladin.

I was wrong, appearently is the second book is already used.

[HoreTore]

Bet you most of those who voted for Uncle Joe on account of "beating back the Germans" conveniently ignored the little detail his full-spectrum bungling in matters military and foreign political was the chief reason the Panzers ever got past Poland in the first place.

Seriously, the somnambulatory way the purge-lobotomized and comissar-saddled Red Army went about its business around the turn of the decade would be comical had it not gotten so much people (Soviet soldiers mostly) killed for naught...

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

[Kralizec]

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

Trivia: the image of Russian troops being sent against the enemy unarmed and expected to pick up weapons from the slaughtered comrades that preceded them is actually based on reality. Except that it was during WW1.
Trotsky left behind a reasonably modern and capable Red Army when he got exiled. The real reason why it nevertheless performed so horroribly in the first months of the German invasion has been pointed out several time now.

[Sarmatian]

That's been the russian way of fighting for centuries, hasn't it? Throw peasant hordes at the enemy until they're swamped...

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

[rvg]

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

During the Winter War of 1940 the Red Army didn't exactly shine either.

[Sarmatian]

During the Winter War of 1940 the Red Army didn't exactly shine either.

True, but reasons for that were mentioned several times in this thread so I didn't think there was need to repeat it...

If Russian soldiers were so great, then why did Napoleon slaughter those armies that were sent out, and the Ruskies retreat over most of their own country; and again millions were captured by the Nazis - the country was almost bled dry due to the truly appalling tactics that were employed.

In which battle did he slaughter them? Borodino? There he had numerical advantage and the losses were similar on both sides. It may appeared to be a Russian defeat from a tactical point of view, but strategically, it was great victory. At the beggining of WW2, due to purges and modernization, army was in a pretty bad state and suffered terrible defeats. Nevertheless, it was reorganized in very short time and managed to fight German army to a standstill and to drive them back. Pretty good if you ask me... Especially when you consider the excellent state of German army in 1941, great commanders, great morale, technological advantages...

[rory_20_uk]

Except in rare cases, that's a myth, much like "General Winter" which is really just a convenient excuse for losing. In most cases, Russian soldiers were pretty well equipped and had excellent commanders and they were pretty adaptable, too, managing to minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths, as evident against Prussian under Frederick the Great, French under Napoleon, Germany in WW2 and so on...

There are exceptions, of course. WW1 is one of them, where Russian army was truly in a pathetic state and had pretty bad commanders, except Brusilov.

If Russian soldiers were so great, then why did Napoleon slaughter those armies that were sent out, and the Ruskies retreat over most of their own country; and again millions were captured by the Nazis - the country was almost bled dry due to the truly appalling tactics that were employed.

Russian soldiers were first in the army for life, then for 25 years. Service was brutal and most wouldn't live much longer than their service. They were deeply religious. The armed forces were also unable to make decisions unless commanded by senior echelons. You there have soldiers that know death is coming, and that's not such a bad thing - difficult to break the army, but inflexible on the battlefield.

Well equipped? They used muskets way beyond almost all other forces in Europe.