Originally posted by whodeyOK, well bearing in mind this admission that you have trouble perceiving pretty much everything, talk us through your comparison of "Muslims dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers go down in New York City" and the siege of Leningrad.
Human beings have difficutly perceiving pretty much everything. All of our views and beliefs are skewed to various degrees.
Originally posted by FMFThe US is an "evil" empire. Therefore, anything that happens to the empire that is "bad" is worth celebrating.
OK, well bearing in mind this admission that you have trouble perceiving pretty much everything, talk us through your comparison of "Muslims dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers go down in New York City" and the siege of Leningrad.
Originally posted by FMFThe Cold War and the Holocaust possibly overshadowed the suffering of the Soviets during WW2.
From a book review: [b]"The Nazi siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1943, during which time the city was cut off from the rest of the world, was one of the most gruesome episodes of World War II. In scale, the tragedy of Leningrad dwarfs even the Warsaw ghetto or Hiroshima."
Why is the siege of Leningrad so often overlooked?
Does humanity have diff ...[text shortened]... es modern global round the clock competitive media coverage affect both perception and memory?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFI'm sure it's not overlooked by Russians.
From a book review: [b]"The Nazi siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1943, during which time the city was cut off from the rest of the world, was one of the most gruesome episodes of World War II. In scale, the tragedy of Leningrad dwarfs even the Warsaw ghetto or Hiroshima."
Why is the siege of Leningrad so often overlooked?
Does humanity have diff ...[text shortened]... es modern global round the clock competitive media coverage affect both perception and memory?[/b]
I find that modern media provides me a greater choice of perspectives from which to construct my own provisional narratives. What do you think?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's not overlooked by me because I have an active interest in history. Modern media can be extremely useful but the "greater choice of perspectives from which to construct one's own provisional narratives" teems with the perspectives of liars and fools, where the fools among them might once have struggled to get past some basic degree of quality control, and the liars and partisan advocates very often stood out for what they were.
I'm sure it's not overlooked by Russians.
I find that modern media provides me a greater choice of perspectives from which to construct my own provisional narratives. What do you think?
Originally posted by FMFThe difference is that, while it was a terrible tragedy on an enormous scale, siege is a well established and historically common war tactic. Although clearly the worst, Leningrad was not the only city to be besieged during WWII. Pretty much every major war has sieges of cities.
From a book review: [b]"The Nazi siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1943, during which time the city was cut off from the rest of the world, was one of the most gruesome episodes of World War II. In scale, the tragedy of Leningrad dwarfs even the Warsaw ghetto or Hiroshima."
Why is the siege of Leningrad so often overlooked?
Does humanity have diff ...[text shortened]... es modern global round the clock competitive media coverage affect both perception and memory?[/b]
A siege is a military operation with civilian casualties. The besieged city has the option of capitulating and ending the siege. That they chose not to was brilliantly heroic or foolhardy depending on your perspective. Warsaw, by contrast, capitulated after a couple of weeks to spare its population though it undoubtedly could have held on significantly longer.
The Holocaust and Hiroshima, by contrast, were new to the human experience. They were not historically common war tactics; the former because the Nazi systematic genocidal policy was all but unprecedented and the latter of course because there were no nuclear weapons prior to 1945.
I think this is essentially what whodey is trying to say, though perhaps he could use a bit of help in doing so.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWhat I am saying is that the world view of the Stalinist regime was that it was "evil" by in large. In fact, in some circles the Nazi's were first seen as liberatorsr of an oppressed people of the USSR, however they then oppressed them further and they lost their appeal. Arguably, if the Nazi's had capitalized on the liberator persona the invasion could have turned out much differently.
What does this have to do with the siege of Leningrad?
So from a world perspective, any attempt to end an "evil" regime is mixed. On the one hand you have human suffering associated with its demise as where, on the other hand, you have the expectation of something better coming along.
I would say that this is the view of the US in the Middle East. Sure they may have a little sympathy for some catastrophy that they may edure but by in large they would probably be dancing in the streets. This is because they have baught into the view that the US is an evil empire.