The Norwegian socialist party announced that they will vote to bomb Israel at their convention.
60 Replies to “Scratch a Leftist”
Sasquatch, you’re still wrong. Oslo Fjord was attacked by Blucher and Lutzow. Karlsruhe was the task force attacking Kristiansand and sunk by a British submarine.
No, it wasn’t gun batteries and mines that sank the Blucher. The guns weren’t manned at the time and there were no minefields in Oslo Fjord. It was a torpedo from Fort Bolaerne.
No, it was the Glorious that was sunk by the Scharnhorst. The ancient Furious, like the Courageous and Glorious, was a converted WW1 battlecruiser. It survived the war.
Please also note that the sinking of the Blucher was largely the result of German incompetence (not something new for the Kriegsmarine during the war). All their watertight doors were wide open at the time, and they entered the fjord at about five knots. Loss of life was extremely heavy partly because of all the non-combatants on board.
Before you attack my knowledge of history, please be careful to correct your own errors. And while you are at it, answer my original question.
cgh >
“Truly delusional”
Please feel free to correct me intelligently and define Socialism.
Then explain how it specifically applies to “the enemy”.
More dismal historical errors:
Mike 71: “This should be nothing new for Canadians, as Canadian Forces commandos took part in many raids on Norway during World War II to help liberate the ungrateful bastards!”
There were 10 commando operations in Norway. Canadians only participated in one, the raid on Spitzbergen to destroy the weather station in 1941. The island was not militarily occupied at the time, so hardly rates as significant experience.
Sasquatch: a few other notes. The German destroyer loss had nothing to do with the Norwegians. They were sunk in Narvik Fjord by the RN. The Norwegian navy had four coast defence “battleships”. Two were captured without resistance and two were sunk without firing a shot in Narvik Fjord.
cgh
“No, it wasn’t gun batteries and mines that sank the Blucher. The guns weren’t manned at the time and there were no minefields in Oslo Fjord. It was a torpedo from Fort Bolaerne.”
Sorta funny…I cut and pasted that from the interweb.
The guns in the forts are still mounted and manned by the Norwegian coast guard and are more than still lethal in the narrows…as late as 1980. The actual guns were considered obsolete in 1940 but the short engagement ranges involved….and the shore mounted tube’s torpedoes sank 2 cruisers…..
The outer forts gave the surviving German Naval units a bloody nose when they withdrew.
Germany reinforced Norways coastal defences. Postwar, these were maintained and manned up to the end of the Cold War. Oslo fyord and Bergen had Penguin missiles added after 1979.
The Glowworm crippeled the Sharnhorst by ramming.
The incompetance by the Kriegsmarine was considering the forts antiquated and insignifigant.
Knight, a perfect socialism is where there is no private property whatsoever. All property is owned by the state. An example of such would be an Israeli kibbutz or a Hutterite community.
Feudalism is the opposite extreme. All property is privately owned by one individual. The effect may seem the same but in practice is very, very different. In a socialism, it never really matters who the supposed leader is. It is the system itself which is tyrannical. In a feudalism, everything depends entirely on the character of the feudal lord. Unlike a socialism, there is no system to determine the law; the feudal lord determines it. Feudalism in short is entirely arbitrary at the whim of a single individual, where in a perfect socialism everything is subject to the system. A socialism, unlike a feudalism, is driven by a rigid consistency with nothing arbitrary or left to choice at all.
In the case of Rome, there was enormous importance placed on private property, and within the Roman system, property rights probably had at least as good protection under the law as we do today, and the Empire could not violate those rights unless the owner had committed some crime against the state. In time, by the end of the 3rd century, the Roman government institutions had decayed so badly that the empire became a mere military dictatorship, a true feudalism where the Emperor was all important but almost invariably murdered and replaced by another military general. More than defeats on the battlefield, it was the degeneration of the Empire into feudalism and the disintegration of its legal and legislative systems that destroyed it.
Using this, we can see that, for example, China under Mao was not really Communist at all. It called itself that, but it was really just a recreation of the absolute imperial power of the Chinese empire overthrown by Sun-Yat-Sen. It looked like a communism and we all called it a communism, but was far more feudal in nature than what happened in the USSR. So-called communism in China collapsed when Mao died, but in the USSR, which truly was socialist, the system lived on after Lenin and Stalin.
So how is this relevant? Systems of personal rule or feudalisms usually collapse when the ruling figure dies or is removed. Socialism is far more dangerous. It creates an enormous bureaucratic system of law and order. Irrespective of who’s at the top, the system continues, disposing of and replacing individuals and leaders. This is a far more dangerous beast than any feudalism because it has a far more robust self-replicating system.
What the green slime want to create is a perfect socialism in which individuals are unimportant, in which no one has private property rights or indeed any rights at all not permitted by the state. It is a socialist condition in which egalitarianism is take to its ultimate expression, by enforcing uniformity of action, possessions (what little is allowed) and thought on everyone.
The best description of a perfect socialism is still to my mind George Orwell’s 1984. The ruling figure is an utterly faceless Big Brother. The system is everything, the individual is nothing. In a feudalism, by contrast, the guy at the top is everything. That’s the key difference.
Sasquatch, that engagement has been the subject of enormous contradictions and mythmaking in the historical literature. The Germans naturally wanted to exaggerate the size of the resistance to hide their own errors in judgment. The Norwegian post war historians wanted to make much of it because that and the battle of Lillehammer were the only two bright spots in an otherwise dismal campaign. I had as much difficulty as you had in trying to sort out just what went on.
The worst incompetence by the Germans was leaving 10 destroyers anchored for a WEEK at Narvik, just begging for the British to come in and sink them.
German naval performance was to get no better.
– Spee scuttled in Rio Del Plata even though it was fully battleworthy;
– Hipper used as a commerce raider even though it had no endurance and defective boilers;
– the legion of blunders by Lutjens in all his commands;
– Bismarck being sortied just a couple of months before Tirpitz was ready;
– Bismarck used as a commerce raider even though it was entirely unsuited to such a role;
– Bismarck breaking radio silence;
– Kummetz’s abysmal maneuvres in Operation Rosselsprung;
– Bey’s abysmal performance which led to the sinking of the Scharnhorst at North Cape.
So why did the Germans win in Norway? Because the Norwegians only put up token resistance thanks to Nazi sympathizers, absolute air control by the Germans, and the fact that the British performance was even worse. The latter directly caused the resignation of Neville Chamberlain as PM. When you screw up by the numbers as badly as the British did, the PM has to go.
Just as Churchill should have been chucked after Singapore.
cgh >
I understand what you are saying and appreciate the better attempt at your response. You do misjudge my intent and what I’m trying to get across.
As I commented before, “lipstick on a pig”.
You are either free, or under control, it doesn’t really matter what you wish to label it.
As far as the feudalism comment that you zeroed in on for the argument, a Baron is also a part of a system of control and only considered the “man” by his direct wards. He is a part of the food chain to the king, who is in turn a part of his political system within kingdoms. It always filters up from the little people on the ground, with whatever system is in place, however you wish to define it.
My point that I repeated several times, was about the definition and how it applies to all governments controlling systems “to one degree or another”. You asserted this in one of your comments, but missed the fact that it was my point all along.
You in turn missed my point. Under a feudalism,control over the individual can never be absolute. As political units grow larger, control has to be increasingly delegated to underlings which in turn increases the instability of the system.
Under a socialism, control can be absolute, because everyone is captured, and everyone watches everyone else. They are much more difficult to destroy and outside pressure usually cements them. That’s why you need to make distinctions. Taking on a socialism and thinking it’s a feudalism is a recipe for disaster.
cgh >
cgh – “Taking on a socialism and thinking it’s a feudalism is a recipe for disaster.”
Now you’re simply putting words in my mouth manufacturing argument when it’s not there. A similar realm as the “Guess you never met a Roman emperor” question.
cgh – “Under a feudalism,control over the individual can never be absolute”…………”Under a socialism, control can be absolute”
If you say so.
cgh – “Under a socialism, control can be absolute, because everyone is captured, and everyone watches everyone else”
Where did you find that definition of socialism?
For the record, which historical society of “absolute control” over the individual are you citing?
I’ll stick to any control on the individual is a bad thing regardless of who’s holding the reigns, even from little green men from mars. You may argue with some future master all you wish the nuances of their control, I’m sure they would be interested in the details.
Funniest thing I read all day.
Maybe feeling a little bold because some Norwegian F-16s dropped a few bombs on Libya.
I wonder if they know that Israeli airspace is a bit more…challenging.
Sasquatch, you’re still wrong. Oslo Fjord was attacked by Blucher and Lutzow. Karlsruhe was the task force attacking Kristiansand and sunk by a British submarine.
No, it wasn’t gun batteries and mines that sank the Blucher. The guns weren’t manned at the time and there were no minefields in Oslo Fjord. It was a torpedo from Fort Bolaerne.
No, it was the Glorious that was sunk by the Scharnhorst. The ancient Furious, like the Courageous and Glorious, was a converted WW1 battlecruiser. It survived the war.
Please also note that the sinking of the Blucher was largely the result of German incompetence (not something new for the Kriegsmarine during the war). All their watertight doors were wide open at the time, and they entered the fjord at about five knots. Loss of life was extremely heavy partly because of all the non-combatants on board.
Before you attack my knowledge of history, please be careful to correct your own errors. And while you are at it, answer my original question.
cgh >
“Truly delusional”
Please feel free to correct me intelligently and define Socialism.
Then explain how it specifically applies to “the enemy”.
More dismal historical errors:
Mike 71: “This should be nothing new for Canadians, as Canadian Forces commandos took part in many raids on Norway during World War II to help liberate the ungrateful bastards!”
There were 10 commando operations in Norway. Canadians only participated in one, the raid on Spitzbergen to destroy the weather station in 1941. The island was not militarily occupied at the time, so hardly rates as significant experience.
Sasquatch: a few other notes. The German destroyer loss had nothing to do with the Norwegians. They were sunk in Narvik Fjord by the RN. The Norwegian navy had four coast defence “battleships”. Two were captured without resistance and two were sunk without firing a shot in Narvik Fjord.
cgh
“No, it wasn’t gun batteries and mines that sank the Blucher. The guns weren’t manned at the time and there were no minefields in Oslo Fjord. It was a torpedo from Fort Bolaerne.”
Sorta funny…I cut and pasted that from the interweb.
The guns in the forts are still mounted and manned by the Norwegian coast guard and are more than still lethal in the narrows…as late as 1980. The actual guns were considered obsolete in 1940 but the short engagement ranges involved….and the shore mounted tube’s torpedoes sank 2 cruisers…..
The outer forts gave the surviving German Naval units a bloody nose when they withdrew.
Germany reinforced Norways coastal defences. Postwar, these were maintained and manned up to the end of the Cold War. Oslo fyord and Bergen had Penguin missiles added after 1979.
The Glowworm crippeled the Sharnhorst by ramming.
The incompetance by the Kriegsmarine was considering the forts antiquated and insignifigant.
Knight, a perfect socialism is where there is no private property whatsoever. All property is owned by the state. An example of such would be an Israeli kibbutz or a Hutterite community.
Feudalism is the opposite extreme. All property is privately owned by one individual. The effect may seem the same but in practice is very, very different. In a socialism, it never really matters who the supposed leader is. It is the system itself which is tyrannical. In a feudalism, everything depends entirely on the character of the feudal lord. Unlike a socialism, there is no system to determine the law; the feudal lord determines it. Feudalism in short is entirely arbitrary at the whim of a single individual, where in a perfect socialism everything is subject to the system. A socialism, unlike a feudalism, is driven by a rigid consistency with nothing arbitrary or left to choice at all.
In the case of Rome, there was enormous importance placed on private property, and within the Roman system, property rights probably had at least as good protection under the law as we do today, and the Empire could not violate those rights unless the owner had committed some crime against the state. In time, by the end of the 3rd century, the Roman government institutions had decayed so badly that the empire became a mere military dictatorship, a true feudalism where the Emperor was all important but almost invariably murdered and replaced by another military general. More than defeats on the battlefield, it was the degeneration of the Empire into feudalism and the disintegration of its legal and legislative systems that destroyed it.
Using this, we can see that, for example, China under Mao was not really Communist at all. It called itself that, but it was really just a recreation of the absolute imperial power of the Chinese empire overthrown by Sun-Yat-Sen. It looked like a communism and we all called it a communism, but was far more feudal in nature than what happened in the USSR. So-called communism in China collapsed when Mao died, but in the USSR, which truly was socialist, the system lived on after Lenin and Stalin.
So how is this relevant? Systems of personal rule or feudalisms usually collapse when the ruling figure dies or is removed. Socialism is far more dangerous. It creates an enormous bureaucratic system of law and order. Irrespective of who’s at the top, the system continues, disposing of and replacing individuals and leaders. This is a far more dangerous beast than any feudalism because it has a far more robust self-replicating system.
What the green slime want to create is a perfect socialism in which individuals are unimportant, in which no one has private property rights or indeed any rights at all not permitted by the state. It is a socialist condition in which egalitarianism is take to its ultimate expression, by enforcing uniformity of action, possessions (what little is allowed) and thought on everyone.
The best description of a perfect socialism is still to my mind George Orwell’s 1984. The ruling figure is an utterly faceless Big Brother. The system is everything, the individual is nothing. In a feudalism, by contrast, the guy at the top is everything. That’s the key difference.
Sasquatch, that engagement has been the subject of enormous contradictions and mythmaking in the historical literature. The Germans naturally wanted to exaggerate the size of the resistance to hide their own errors in judgment. The Norwegian post war historians wanted to make much of it because that and the battle of Lillehammer were the only two bright spots in an otherwise dismal campaign. I had as much difficulty as you had in trying to sort out just what went on.
The worst incompetence by the Germans was leaving 10 destroyers anchored for a WEEK at Narvik, just begging for the British to come in and sink them.
German naval performance was to get no better.
– Spee scuttled in Rio Del Plata even though it was fully battleworthy;
– Hipper used as a commerce raider even though it had no endurance and defective boilers;
– the legion of blunders by Lutjens in all his commands;
– Bismarck being sortied just a couple of months before Tirpitz was ready;
– Bismarck used as a commerce raider even though it was entirely unsuited to such a role;
– Bismarck breaking radio silence;
– Kummetz’s abysmal maneuvres in Operation Rosselsprung;
– Bey’s abysmal performance which led to the sinking of the Scharnhorst at North Cape.
So why did the Germans win in Norway? Because the Norwegians only put up token resistance thanks to Nazi sympathizers, absolute air control by the Germans, and the fact that the British performance was even worse. The latter directly caused the resignation of Neville Chamberlain as PM. When you screw up by the numbers as badly as the British did, the PM has to go.
Just as Churchill should have been chucked after Singapore.
cgh >
I understand what you are saying and appreciate the better attempt at your response. You do misjudge my intent and what I’m trying to get across.
As I commented before, “lipstick on a pig”.
You are either free, or under control, it doesn’t really matter what you wish to label it.
As far as the feudalism comment that you zeroed in on for the argument, a Baron is also a part of a system of control and only considered the “man” by his direct wards. He is a part of the food chain to the king, who is in turn a part of his political system within kingdoms. It always filters up from the little people on the ground, with whatever system is in place, however you wish to define it.
My point that I repeated several times, was about the definition and how it applies to all governments controlling systems “to one degree or another”. You asserted this in one of your comments, but missed the fact that it was my point all along.
You in turn missed my point. Under a feudalism,control over the individual can never be absolute. As political units grow larger, control has to be increasingly delegated to underlings which in turn increases the instability of the system.
Under a socialism, control can be absolute, because everyone is captured, and everyone watches everyone else. They are much more difficult to destroy and outside pressure usually cements them. That’s why you need to make distinctions. Taking on a socialism and thinking it’s a feudalism is a recipe for disaster.
cgh >
cgh – “Taking on a socialism and thinking it’s a feudalism is a recipe for disaster.”
Now you’re simply putting words in my mouth manufacturing argument when it’s not there. A similar realm as the “Guess you never met a Roman emperor” question.
cgh – “Under a feudalism,control over the individual can never be absolute”…………”Under a socialism, control can be absolute”
If you say so.
cgh – “Under a socialism, control can be absolute, because everyone is captured, and everyone watches everyone else”
Where did you find that definition of socialism?
For the record, which historical society of “absolute control” over the individual are you citing?
I’ll stick to any control on the individual is a bad thing regardless of who’s holding the reigns, even from little green men from mars. You may argue with some future master all you wish the nuances of their control, I’m sure they would be interested in the details.
Funniest thing I read all day.
Maybe feeling a little bold because some Norwegian F-16s dropped a few bombs on Libya.
I wonder if they know that Israeli airspace is a bit more…challenging.