Personally I don't think an article entitled 'the lies of Timothy Snyder' is all that interested in discussing the nuanced historiography of the Second World War's Eastern Front. (it's entirely possible that Jacobin had a different article about Snyder which you're referring to in which case I haven't read it and can't comment) The article I read, however, emphasized the Home Army's antisemitism to an extreme and all but called them collaborators in the Holocaust with the Nazis, subtextually justifying the Soviet refusal to relieve the Home Army as necessary to protect Jews. I'm fully comfortable with calling that article Soviet apologist.
The New Order: Last Days of Europe - An Axis Victory Cold War Mod for HoIIV
- Thread starter Lonely Knightess
- Start date
- Status
The article was hardly apologizing for the Soviet position in my opinion, more just criticizing Snyder’s methodology throughout his book (the article has an entire section explicitly discussing his methodology and its roots in the historiography debate) and how his narrative is explicitly made not to conform to fact but to relentlessly cover for the Armia Krajowa and conflate Hitlerism and Stalinism (something pretty consistently deconstructed by Soviet-studies historians like Fitzpatrick and other prominent historians in compendiums like Beyond Totalitarianism). I personally didn’t find the article to be apologizing for Soviet crimes so much as pointing out an absurdly anti-Soviet bent in his methodology which is a reasonable charge if you’re familiar with Soviet Historiography and the “new school vs Cold Warriors” argument. One can criticize bad history made with a political intent without necessarily engaging in apologia, just as was demonstrated by the Historikerstreit where the functionalists argued that the Holocaust was far more organic and ad-hoc than just “Hitler and NSDAP leaderships intentions from the start” without detracting from the evils of Nazism.
This is probably not the forum to discuss this though, so I’ll agree to disagree
The communists were the leading group (though elements of the City of London police, partisans and a handful of low ranking officers also took part).
It less allowed them to take it up than made them the only ones left. In a night the CPGB went from being the largest rebel group on the isles to nearly broken. Almost all the leadership was killed or captured (and killed) including Harry Pollitt who led the party. Auchinleck's HMMLR surged into the gap to replace the CPGB where they could but even 10 years later by game start the south is still impenetrable for most rebel organisations.
Who other notable people got killed after the uprising? And who was the English PM back then?
how Edward VIII react to it? Emotionally, since he has no power
AeroTheZealousOne
Monthly Donor
In regards to Godherja: The Dying World, I would say he still has a thing for some level or another of grimdark settings, but that's neither here nor there.
I wasn't aware either, either I forgot it from the first dev diary or the lore has changed quite a bit between early 2018 and now.
A : Most of the CPGB civil and military leadership save Bill Alexander and a few other escapees, and Mountbatten the then current PM. (The Cornwall Garrison definitely had nothing to do with that, for sure.)
B : "Oh no, anyway."
Wait, the Cornwall Garrison shot the PM?
Did any major conservative figure supported the Uprising? Thatcher was elected in 1951 on the mod, so what did she do?
Officially Mountbatten just got assassinated shortly after the uprising, unofficially yes Halder had him popped for suspecting (wrongly) involvement in said uprising.
Some conservative members of the police and army joined in but it was broadly a revolutionary one. Thatcher was just some newbie MP, gave the standard condemnation and what have you.
Give me any tepid British fabian socialist before a Nazi Collaborator any day.
I mean, if that uprising worked, you wouldn't get a Fabian, this is the wikipedia description of the guy who led the uprising says about his political position
"Pollitt spent most of his life advocating communism, particularly Stalinism. "
Assuming the rebels won, we wouldn't get a Harold Wilson but a Reg Byrch
And that even if Stalin didn't take power, people would still be inspired by his ideas (as Tyumen shows).
Thats actually something which has gone under revision, so aside from Mountbatten its not really set in stone.
About that, Khrushchev does declare something along those lines when he takes power.
I'll be blunt, if the London Uprising had succeeded Britain would be better off than at TNO start simply because its not a terrorist ridden, economically fucked, nazi aligned classist oligarchy.
This does not mean that Pollitt's government would be all sunshine and roses, but if he were to get the Scots back on board and make peace with some of the other rebel organisations he would have been forced to maintain something closer to old Britain than to the Soviet Union. (Though, that's IF. It'd make for an interesting sight to see what happens if he didn't)
And well, the Jewish, Leftist and disabled populations of England would be considerably better off than under the Collabs.
A HMMLR victory creates a britain that is better on every single aspect and it is democrat
Yeah, makes sense to me- I definitely don't view Snyder's word as gospel and I have problems with a lot of what he says (particularly his condemnation of the partisans) but yeah, agree to disagree.
- Status