«12. . .498499500501502503504. . .619620»
Orwell's account of the war on the Catalan front.
"It was a running joke among the men in the trenches, "We'll have coffee in Huesca tomorrow morning." This came from general earlier in the war when the Republicans (the militias) drove through to Huesca, and got involved in "... the scene of some of the worst fighting between the Republicans and Franco's army. The city was besieged by the Republicans, George Orwell among them but never fell."
If proper weapons (Orwell was armed with a rusty 1896 Mauser) had been delivered to the trenches, they could have broken through.
Unlikely, as they were using WWI era tactics (charging across open ground) against a heavily fortified position with artillery and machine gun support. Moreover, one of the commanders was killed by a Nationalist shelling. And this is still presuming that the Soviets could have supplied the amount of arms necessary when they were already supplying a huge amount to the Popular Army.
The Republicans used 'Stormtroopers' (mostly German volunteers, ironically) to infiltrate the Nationalist positions. The Nationalists at this part of the line were mainly poorly-trained and poorly-equipped conscripts (in even worse shape supply wise compared to the militias). The PSUC controlled all supply shipments to the Catalan front, and thus the failure of the planned offensive can rest on them.
The failure of the offensive was the lack of artillery or armored support, not individual weaponry. The Nationalists cut down 9000 of the militias with machine guns and artillery; there was no recovering from that.
Anauê Comrades! This is more like it, that USSR region is nothing but barter and no content.
I was there for a time as an ambassador for another region, it was not my favorite
The USSR establishes good debates, and for you to come back here and disrespect it by hating on it, thats just wrong. I am a puppet nation of a nation in the USSR (if my motto didn't already say that), and while we do have people like Klotecnia, and Dimitrigrad, overall the region is quite productive. Its far better than this one at the least. More members, and always new conversations.
Overreact much? I just don't like regions that are TOO big, and seeing how currently there is a teenager complaining how she has to smoke with her brother so as to hide it from her mother, I didn't like it at all.
I would like to discourage hostility on the rmb. Arguing, even passionately, is perfectly fine, but if it turns into insults, the offending posts will be suppressed.
Better than this region? I have nothing against the USSR, and I think it is counter-productive and counter-revolutionary to have this sort of squabbling. On another note, anyone read "Brave New World" here?
Another thing, I could really use a bit of a refresher on how to argue with a capitalist. I just got involved in an argument that I definitely feel like I lost.
What part did you have trouble with? I argue with them more often, so I could be of some help.
I just wish i could get my Iron Fist Consumerist title gone..... I dont want that and am working hard to get it changed.
That was NEVER a conversation on the USSR region board, you know that right?
I'm willing to leave it behind us, and to look forward to a glorious future under the Red Flag, but if you really want to squable because all I did was highlight ONE issue that I saw there, then I shall leave and look for better nations to neighbour with.
Post self-deleted by Heirs of lenin.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I was merely trying to highlight that it's not right to hate upon others opinions, or behaviors, or whatever you would call the USSR RMB. I wish no hostility between us.
We were arguing about the Robber Barons (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.) and whether their business practices were morally acceptable, especially in that time in history. We also discussed the Homestead Massacre and whether the Unionists were at fault.
That isn't really my forte, tbh, but I can try to help; I do know that the managers had locked the workers out of the building before the contract had expired, which made the managers largely at fault.
I used the same vein of argument, but they brought up all these statements saying that the Robber Barons were the ones taking the biggest risk, and that if the workers had really wanted representation, they would have bought shares in the companies.
To that, I would say that the workers were the ones taking the bigger risk; if the company failed, they lost everything as well (e.g. their job, possibly their house, etc.). I would also say that buying stock is as much an investment as in gaining representation in company management, and that many would have had little to nothing to gain from such an investment; as well as the fact that they had already invested something more than money in the company -- their own labor.
It's a good thing that we agree on that much, lol. I was basically saying that the workers risked more than the private owners, since there was the significant chance that their health would be compromised on the job.
They also said that the 19th century had the highest rate of social mobility in history. What would be your resposnse?
On that, they are correct; but that was mostly because economic class in prior periods of history (possible exceptions being merchant republics) were based on birth and bloodline; whereas capitalism allowed "new money".
I used much the same arguments, and made the point that the great availability of the ability to exploit (being a capitalist) doesn't make the system morally correct.
Hi guys. First time I've posted here. Just watched Inside Job with my BF today. Good documentary, much better than Michael Moore's back-door capitalist arguments in his docos.
«12. . .498499500501502503504. . .619620»
Advertisement
