BBC is airing a documentray about Soviet Navy officer Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov who persuaded his captain against the nuclear attack during the Cubean Missile Crisis when lost conract with Moscow. US force didn't know it was a nuclear submarine and tried to force it surface. He probably prevented a nuclear war by himself. The documentary is titled "The Man Who Saved the World".
It's not a surprise that the best act of a soldier is refusing to obey an order of attack, instead of doing his job. Saying, NO. Which is completely against the militarist logic in general, and they were under attack themselves. I pretty much doubt that something like this would happen today. I don't think anyone can't even imagine that pressure and the psychology 50 years ago those soviet soldiers were in.
Talk about a real HERO.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2295274962/
The source I took it from also says that this has just been revealed, but of course it's not. It has been written about before.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cold-war/sovietsbomb.htm
Another Soviet officer prevented nuclear war circa 1984, when the Russian defense system thought that a missile attack was occurring, when in fact it was a missile exercise in the north of Nato.
But there are very few people who can fly without an airplane, or look good in spandex ;-)
I have always been skeptical of demonizing opponents, and I have always liked the Russians, though as a "Cold Warrior" I considered them dangerous opponents until 1991. And I have been entirely opposed to aggressive Nato actions in Ukraine etc over the last 1+ year. It is folly to provoke a bear.
I think what is so impressive about Arkhipov is that he wasn't sitting on a desk in his country looking at a report of a defense system.
He was in a nuclear submarine -for how long who knows- they were under attack and they didn't have any contact with Moscow. Most of the people would just drop their head and obey his superior's commands just not to shoulder the pressure alone. He says no, persuades him.
I'm not getting in to an anochronistic exercise of what would have happened if the attacked nuclear submarine was a US force. See, I am not. :lol:
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2015, 06:08:52 AM
I have always been skeptical of demonizing opponents,
It is a very good personal sentiment. However, it is very unrealistic in the big picture. The whole people/media support -which is a huge proportion- side of the wars is BASED ON demonising the other. Not just demonising, also dehumanising. It's a systematic, professional business. It also pays very well. Like you said yourself in the thread about the sick islamic extremist raping a child. It's very east to do.
It's just continous certain expressions of language. You never express the word Christianity or American in any violent news, while under reporting the crimes and events and if possible not make it to news at all. Either domestic or international. On the other hand, you'll make every violent news related to others -muslims or any other group than white christian- sure to define them with a graphic, highly emoitonal language to describe the vile act in long sentences.
For example there was a case years ago about an American soldier raping and Iraki girl and killing her family. He was presented as 'a psyhcopath' with his name cut out from his position. A man from a western culture killing his wife is a psychopath and he does this because he is mentally very ill; domestic violence. A muslim man is reported commiting the same crime because of being a muslim. They have managed to define the name equal to rape. According to most western people's vision of middle east...we are all constantly getting raped here. Nothing else happens. No it is not a hyperbolic expression. That's the unconscious frame of mind.
This is not just about the foriegn enemy. White crime -esp. violent ones- are always under reported in the US. There are solid sources screaming their head off white on white crime is as higher as black on black crime, also male violence on female is far low in black groups compared to whites, BUT almost everyone -mostly white- still thinks that they are likely to get killed/attacked by a black perpetrator. That blacks are more prone to violence.
There was a very interesting article about general policies against heroine usage in the US. How that it changed face and got softer when heroine spread among white groups and suddenly it became something else than it was in years, since 60s.
But of course most of the white people still can't see racism around, it is just the media. And muslims are protected by lefties. :lol:
Strange behaviour for a meat machine, no?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 16, 2015, 08:06:28 AM
Strange behaviour for a meat machine, no?
It's 'meat grinder', not meat machine. And it's the name of the industry, not the soldiers. Soldiers are the meat. The ones who don't have a choice to get out, I mean.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 16, 2015, 08:34:00 AM
It's 'meat grinder', not meat machine. And it's the name of the industry, not the soldiers. Soldiers are the meat. The ones who don't have a choice to get out, I mean.
I didn't bring that term up first here. Speak to the author.
I used it in the Worship Soldier thread.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 16, 2015, 08:53:11 AM
I used it in the Worship Soldier thread.
So you refute yourself. Interesting. Maybe you should put you on ignore? ;)
Drunkenshoe ... sometimes I report where others are coming from (the Elite for instance). Sometimes I am reporting my own feelings, beliefs, knowledge or understanding. This medium and my lack of skill, sometimes doesn't make that clear. There is a context to what I post, and I have my own agenda, as do you. Our agendas here are not the same, but you haven't seen me anti-post what I perceive your agenda to be, at least not directly. That would be judging you, and if you have perceived some such ad hominem, I assure you, it is only your anxiety, it isn't in me. We really don't know each other, and I suspect in person I would really like you as a friend, in spite of your impassioned expression ... I like people who are different ... and someone from Anatolia is different to most people on this web page (though there are a few other Commonwealth folks who are not American).
It is not in my agenda to engage is American bashing, Christian bashing, Male bashing, White bashing, Adult bashing etc ... though if it did, it would more appropriately be under a political thread, though it is not my agenda to post in such threads ... I do that on a different blog. I don't bash, it isn't my way (except American presidential candidates ... bash, bash bash). I present a neutral face here ... and if that offends you, please accept my plea for tolerance of it.
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2015, 10:01:56 AM
Drunkenshoe ... sometimes I report where others are coming from (the Elite for instance). Sometimes I am reporting my own feelings, beliefs, knowledge or understanding. This medium and my lack of skill, sometimes doesn't make that clear. There is a context to what I post, and I have my own agenda, as do you. Our agendas here are not the same, but you haven't seen me anti-post what I perceive your agenda to be, at least not directly. That would be judging you, and if you have perceived some such ad hominem, I assure you, it is only your anxiety, it isn't in me. We really don't know each other, and I suspect in person I would really like you as a friend, in spite of your impassioned expression ... I like people who are different ... and someone from Anatolia is different to most people on this web page (though there are a few other Commonwealth folks who are not American).
It is not in my agenda to engage is American bashing, Christian bashing, Male bashing, White bashing, Adult bashing etc ... though if it did, it would more appropriately be under a political thread, though it is not my agenda to post in such threads ... I do that on a different blog. I don't bash, it isn't my way (except American presidential candidates ... bash, bash bash). I present a neutral face here ... and if that offends you, please accept my plea for tolerance of it.
I don't understand why are you telling me this, if it doesn't affect you at all.
Yes you do offend me, I told you why in another thread. Go read that one. Basically, you are fake.
As you like it. Fortunately I am not under the illusion that I please everyone, nor that I can do so, nor that I should. You impugn my integrity, but it affects me not, so why bother?
Just when I have relaxed and found peace of mind I looked at the two videos. Just think what would happened now when religious are willing to die for Allah have atomic weapons. They have every reason to attack and be glorious martyrs. I don't think the world is going to last much longer because of funda"mental" religion in control of our destinies. :madu: Checkmate!
Quote from: Baruch on August 16, 2015, 11:49:19 AM
As you like it. Fortunately I am not under the illusion that I please everyone, nor that I can do so, nor that I should. You impugn my integrity, but it affects me not, so why bother?
I'll bother.
You are trying to draw this fatherly, wise old Jewish guy portrait, but in your posts while you keep repeating an old rhetoric of 'aah humanity...what is the man compared to...and history' with commonplace sentiments of peace and unity, you conflict with yourself at every turn.
You are pretending to criticise something while you actually completely support it. You are a religious right winger with a designed language. You are perfectly happy with the general picture and everything you pretend to condemn, but you pretend that you are not, with exact same lines you keep sticking between a few philosophers names which apparently cannot get past the time line of 19th century.
You are also very direct though you are sayin that you are not. You are just trying to drown any real comment you type in a series of 'sweet' sentiments covering all, so it wouldn't look obvious. You openly tried to berate political critcism in the Worship Soldier thread, yet you claim soldiers are out there dying because of politicians -which you supposedly detest almost in every post- and defined that as ugly human condition. The thread was completely based on that. You got pissed off when Amercian militarism was criticised, you back lashed in a passive garessive style from another's personal post.
You keep repeating the same sentences about 'demonising' other people and cultures -again with 'bad bad politicians' replique- stick some vague rhetoric between and then you say you support 'insert common mainstream American policy here' which is based on the demonising propaganda in the US. Like everything about the Middle East or any nonwestern other culture of the world. You might not know anything about mine past the American propaganda, but I know your culture, Baruch. My sister lives there and quite a few people from my family lived and still live in the US.
Do you even mean anything you write? It's like if your posts were something material and we shook the stuffing part down to leave the essence, there would be only god-religion-nation politics left.
None of that points to some integrity. It's not neutral either. That's snake oiling.
You can anti-post me every time you like. It's much better than reading that^. Or, there is an ignore list in your profile. If you type the first letters of my nick it would come up and when clicked you don't see my posts.
Quote from: Solitary on August 16, 2015, 11:59:40 AM
... funda"mental" religion in control of our destinies. :madu: Checkmate!
I like that.
The world is a complicated place, and I am complicated too.
If anyone hasn't noticed, the Pakistanis are Muslim, and they do have nuclear weapons. Though they are primarily aimed at India. India can defend itself, in the event the Pakistanis get stupid. I would fear for Muslims living in India in that event, but what of history that isn't tragedy.
Everyone is aware that USA and Israel have nuclear weapons. If they do, anyone can. That is enough for everyone.
After all USA is the only country that already used nuclear weapons.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 16, 2015, 02:18:15 PM
Everyone is aware that USA and Israel have nuclear weapons. If they do, anyone can. That is enough for everyone.
After all USA is the only country that already used nuclear weapons.
And Israel if I remember correctly is the only one who denied having nukes. OHHHH! Iran will "cheat" on the pending nuclear agreement, but it's ok if Israel has been "cheating" all along. . Quite a double standard.
It's ok that the US firebombed millions of innocent Japanese civilians in WWII in order to bring Japan to it's knees even though months prior Japan had already tried unsuccessfully to surrender to the terms that they submitted to on the USS Missouri. The US had "no choice" but to drop nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities. After all, somebody had to show the world that we're not to be fucked with. .. It makes me weary that if a rube gets back in the white house will they believe it's a justification to drop more nukes to "stop terror"?
The "terms" the Japanese submitted earlier were that they keep their conquests, nobody gets tried for the atrocities they committed, and Japan doesn't get demilitarized or occupied. Sounds reasonable.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 17, 2015, 08:26:07 AM
The "terms" the Japanese submitted earlier were that they keep their conquests, nobody gets tried for the atrocities they committed, and Japan doesn't get demilitarized or occupied. Sounds reasonable.
Give it up, Gawd. This is the internet with built in short term memory. Nobody remembers you are a Vietnam vet or a historian whose specialty is WW2. And I've mentioned on here maybe a dozen times I spent 4 years from 1968-72 bebopping around the North Atlantic and Mediterranean in an FBM nuclear missile packing submarine. Emotional righteous indignation trumps experience every time.
I got fucking tired of having to reintroduce myself with every post, you will too.
Quote from: stromboli on August 17, 2015, 10:37:03 AM
Give it up, Gawd. This is the internet with built in short term memory. Nobody remembers you are a Vietnam vet or a historian whose specialty is WW2. And I've mentioned on here maybe a dozen times I spent 4 years from 1968-72 bebopping around the North Atlantic and Mediterranean in an FBM nuclear missile packing submarine. Emotional righteous indignation trumps experience every time.
I got fucking tired of having to reintroduce myself with every post, you will too.
I got on the Internet during Desert Shield*. The inspiration for Hyperwar and the documents site came from people selectively quoting documents or just plain lying about historical events. I'm still doing that job 25 years later. I will eventually give it up, and sit quietly in that urn on the fireplace mantle.
*1989 for you folks with short memories.
I suppose this is nitpicking, but this Wikpedia article explains that Arkhipov did not disobey an order, but he refused to cooperate and go along with a submarine captain who he was equal to in rank. The captain had command of the submarine which Arkhipov was riding in, but it was Arkhipov who was in command of the fleet. If that sounds confusing to you, then so says I too, and would be interested if anybody could elaborate on how Soviet military culture made that possible.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 16, 2015, 05:51:09 AM
BBC is airing a documentray about Soviet Navy officer Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov who persuaded his captain against the nuclear attack during the Cubean Missile Crisis when lost conract with Moscow. US force didn't know it was a nuclear submarine and tried to force it surface. He probably prevented a nuclear war by himself. The documentary is titled "The Man Who Saved the World".
It's not a surprise that the best act of a soldier is refusing to obey an order of attack, instead of doing his job. Saying, NO. Which is completely against the militarist logic in general, and they were under attack themselves. I pretty much doubt that something like this would happen today. I don't think anyone can't even imagine that pressure and the psychology 50 years ago those soviet soldiers were in.
Talk about a real HERO.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2295274962/
The source I took it from also says that this has just been revealed, but of course it's not. It has been written about before.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cold-war/sovietsbomb.htm
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 17, 2015, 12:58:37 PM
I suppose this is nitpicking, but this Wikpedia article explains that Arkhipov did not disobey an order, but he refused to cooperate and go along with a submarine captain who he was equal to in rank. The captain had command of the submarine which Arkhipov was riding in, but it was Arkhipov who was in command of the fleet. If that sounds confusing to you, then so says I too, and would be interested if anybody could elaborate on how Soviet military culture made that possible.
Oh yes. There was even a discussion about this. (Not here) They are 3 men and his approval is needed. However, it is pretty much 'disobeying orders' because he could have very easily been accused of 'mutiny', under those conditions considering Arkhipov is not the Captain OF THAT SUBMARINE, isn't it? He is actually the third man in the submarine concerning the approval and there is another officer with a political rank -supporting the attack he probably knows the agenda in general better, so he is against one Captain and one political figure- as far as I understand. He doesn't have equal rank with the captain -hence one is called the captain other is called second in command- he is just needed to approve a high level weapon attack. The Captain is the only person who has the consideration of using those weapons; to make the decision and under those circumstances; no contact with Moscow for days and days, nose to nose with US force, probbaly watching depth charges going off from the radar, also they need to surface after some time...most people would just jump the gun. Esp. today.
I find mentioning the rank pretty forced and biased in an American page (wiki) to be frank. Somebody said somethin interesting about this which I can't recall now, like I think it was mentioned at more than one places in one source, emphasized more than once. Whatever, not sure. We don't know how it exactly went down, but I don't think we wouldn't be wrong, if we looked at it from a point of view that a Captain of a nuclear submarine -or a warship or an ordinary ship- is pretty much the fucking God in the position not to listen anyone when comes down to it, esp. in a very dangerous situation like that. What's more, if he did give the order fire and let's say then was able to escape, they even could have been 'heroes' in the end after a long war that fucked the earth. Nobody would go back and say yes, this the very moment decided it all. It counts when it is prevented.
I don't want to sound obnoxious, but the thing is if this man was an American, we wouldn't have heard the end of it. Nobody would even remember to question his rank. This thread wouldn't be here, because we would have already known him very well, celebrating his birth day every year, there would have been 5 movies (at least two of them with a few oscars including the actor playing Arkhipov) and 20 TV series about him, we would grow up with him starting toddler years; the man who saved the world. Though thinking a second more, if he was an American, we highly likely wouldn't have existed, because there would have been a Nuclear WWIII. So scratch all that.
Instead we grew up with American movies with Russian submarine captains who is secretly trying to defect to USA by creating a world crisis, THEN they are heroes. I think you got my point. :lol:
From what angle we look at it, Arkhipov is an extraordinary man. The problem with him from the American media -and also ours- is that he is Russian. :lol: And he cannot be promoted because of that.
PS Somebody also said something about Arkhipov being listened by the other officers just because of an accident he has survived...etc. I don't know the details, didn't look in to it. So may be, there are some other things affecting the situation that he was able to persuade them. But the thing is, he disagreed and HE TRIED.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 17, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
He doesn't have equal rank with the captain -hence one is called the captain other is called second in command- he is just needed to approve a high level weapon attack.
Well, give the Wiki article a look, because I read an apparent paradox which I myself would like clarification on, if anybody can clarify it. He was second in command of the submarine, but his rank is said to be equal to the Captain. Arkhipov was second in command aboard his submarine, but he alone commanded the entire flotilla. I realize how strange that is to be but subordinate and superior to his captain at the same time, which is why I can only ask if others who understand Russian/Soviet culture a bit more can explain this. You see, the approval of the 2nd officer in command would not have been required on a different vessel in Arkhipov's flotilla, where he was not aboard.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 17, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
I don't want to sound obnoxious, but the thing is if this man was an American, we wouldn't have heard the end of it. Nobody would even remember to question his rank. This thread wouldn't be here, because we would have already known him very well, celebrating his birth day every year, there would have been 5 movies (at least two of them with a few oscars including the actor playing Arkhipov) and 20 TV series about him, we would grow up with him starting toddler years; the man who saved the world. Though thinking a second more, if he was an American, we highly likely wouldn't have existed, because there would have been a Nuclear WWIII. So scratch all that.
There are already movies on Eric Snowden, although his disobedience to his criminal superiors remains controversial.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 17, 2015, 03:49:45 PM
Well, give the Wiki article a look, because I read an apparent paradox which I myself would like clarification on, if anybody can clarify it. He was second in command of the submarine, but his rank is said to be equal to the Captain. Arkhipov was second in command aboard his submarine, but he alone commanded the entire flotilla. I realize how strange that is to be but subordinate and superior to his captain at the same time, which is why I can only ask if others who understand Russian/Soviet culture a bit more can explain this. You see, the approval of the 2nd officer in command would not have been required on a different vessel in Arkhipov's flotilla, where he was not aboard.
There are already movies on Eric Snowden, although his disobedience to his criminal superiors remains controversial.
Yeah it is weird and it just makes me more suspicious about certain type of wiki pages. But then I couldn't find anything on Russian navy rank system in cold war, may be it is something very different. Because it doesn't make sense at all.
May be it is something unique to that submarine? Or nuclear submarines in Russian navy in cold war general? Special arrangement? How many of the submarines in the flotilla were loaded nuclear armed torpedoes? Could it be something arranged just for the submarine because of it is weaponry? And may be they put Arkhipov on board just because of the K-19 experience?
And look at this:
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=Xx3ptbzQ8L4C&pg=PA74&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Look at the description of the event.
"The missile crisis
'was the most dangerous moment of the human history' Arthur Schlesinger in 2002..."
"A guy named Arkhipov saved the world... a Soviet submarine officer
blocked an order to fire nuclear armed torpedoes on October 27 at the tensest moment of the crisis when the submarines were under attack by US destroyers" by Thomas Blanton, National Security Archive-Washington. (Read the last wiki sentence in that paragraph without citation. :lol: )
Although there is no reference to his rank, it definitely suggests equality. But then the position should have been defined as a 'high officer' at least rather than 'officer'? That's a conference, something official. Esp. if the guy is in command of a whole flotilla? Confused.
Also the following paragraph in Chomsky's book is a good criticism about how Kennedy handled that crisis and what that war criminal called Bush did.
You think Snowden is some sort of a patsy? I didn't read much about it, there were too many conspiracy theories around it and honestly I didn't think I would find real info on it.
I will have to give some credit to President Kennedy ... for being a moderate when everyone around him wanted to start WW III (and the rest of the American leadership were guilty of provoking Cuba prior to that point). Part of what probably got him killed? Also Premier Krushchev must get some credit. Castro not so much ... he wanted to launch the missiles already there as a first strike. The Soviet leader Mikoyan kept control of what nuclear weapons where there at that time (tactical and strategic) and wouldn't let Castro control them.