User talk:Kenmore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

Kenmore Archives #1[1]

[edit] Afghan War Editing

Well, I wouldn't mind if your edits had been constructive additions. However, all you have done up to now is delete a lot of sourced content. If you think that because you've asked politely, you can delete the sourced contributions I made, then you've got another think coming. All the content you removed was scrupulously sourced from sources that perfectly meet wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and reliability. If some things disagree with your POV, that does not entitle you to delete them. Your claims to objectivity and historical accuracy look more like attempts to push a biased vision history.

Moreover, I read your the views you expressed on the talk page, and I can't say I sympathize with them. Especially, your depiction of a war that killed 15,000 Soviets(at least) and one million Afghans (at the very least) as nothing more than "desultory skirmishing" seems to me the last degree of callousness. How could anyone in their right mind say that? All your other arguments are nothing more than the expression of your unfounded POV, or are completely erroneous, like the claim that the Soviets withdrew because of the financial cost of the war(ridiculous). You claim that the article should be sourced from "respected authorities in academia and journalism", but so far, you have failed to cite a single source. If you wish to continue editing this article, I strongly urge you to do so constructively, rather than disruptively. Raoulduke47 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Raoule, Kenmore blurted the same hurl toward me, that Wikipedia is allegedly turning into a "joke" due to my contributions in the Soviet-Afghan War article. Apparently, any edits that are adverse toward the Soviet position, becomes a "joke" or "far-fetched." What's stunning is Kenmore is demonstrating a gross POV while at the same time labeling other contributions as a "joke" since it is adverse to his Soviet/Russian slant in articles. Scythian1 (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The basis of your viewpoint is the article by Reuveny and Prakash, and I don't believe you even gave that article a close reading. Reuveny and Prakash admit themselves that their view is isolated, contrarian and controversial. In the eight years since its publication no other modern historians or political scientists attach any weight to the article. If I wanted to, I could post an entire slew of footnotes supporting my claims. I am not advocating a "Soviet/Russian slant" in the article...I'm arguing for the truth.
It would nice if you and Roaulduke47 could go for more balance and objectivity in the article. Kenmore (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to stick with your POV version. And wikipedia would be a much better place without your dogmatic POV-pushing. As far as I can see you have never made a single useful edit to these articles, but have deleted a lot of content that disagrees with your vision of history. The total result of your actions is to have wasted the time of other contributors and threatened people with flame wars. So what kind of an editor are you? You claim to be arguing for the truth, but so far all you have done is to randomly remove sourced facts, such as the fact that the mujahideen did not interfere with the withdrawal(confirmed by Soviet sources) and the description of the battle of Arghandab. No doubt you would like to brush that communist defeat under the carpet, but it was an example of the weakness of the DRA forces, and it explains why many observers thought the DRA would collapse after the Soviet withdrawal, so it should NOT be removed. Instead you added a mention of the battle of Jalalabad, that happened outside the timeline of this article. What purpose does that serve?

The Battle of Jalalabad happened concurrent to the Soviet withdrawal, and it is important to include in the article because it illustrates that the guerrillas were not winning the war. It shows that the war was stalemated on the ground. Further, there is no need to mention that the guerrillas didn’t interfere with the Soviet withdrawal: they had no choice. The guerrillas never had the firepower to attack Soviet columns in the first place. The Battle of Arghandab was an inconclusive affair; neither side won. It was not a pivotal battle which had any impact on the war, as your narrative suggests. Hence, Arghandab should be removed or rewritten in the article.Kenmore (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And you still haven't explained your grotesque views that a war that killed more than a million Afghans and 15,000 Soviets should be considered "desultory skirmishing". No doubt you are a hardcore Stalinian, and you consider that killing a million people is a statistic. If that is the case, then we don't have the same conception of the value of human life, and we won't ever be able to agree.

As for your views of Reuveny and Prakash, well, your POV does not invalidate the work of serious researchers, published by reliable institutions. the fact that you consider their works to be unreliable is irrelevant. No doubt, because of your Russian/Soviet slant, you would prefer to imagine that the demise of the Soviet union was due to some titanic and glorious struggle between superpowers. But it is easy to understand, even for you, I would have thought, that a regime that staked its credibility on military might would be undermined by a military setback, or even by the perception of a military setback, which is what Reuveny and Prakash were arguing. If I were fond of comparing apples and oranges, like you, I would say that the Soviet leadership found itself in the same situation as the Argentinian miltary Junta after the Falklands war, though in a less dramatic way. This is not a fringe theory as you falsely claim, but a widespreaad idea that is repeated by many sources(including Russian ones) that I could cite. In addition, if you had read the phrase that cited that source before deleting it, then you would have seen that it did not affirm that the war in Afghanistan was the one and only cause of the collapse of the USSR(which I don't believe): all it said was that the war had been cited as one of the causes. That is simply an indication of the importance and notability of the war, regardless of whether it is correct or not. If you had been less narrow-mindedly dogmatic, and less keen to perceive imaginary attacks on the honour of Holy Mother Russia, then you might have understood why that phrase was there, and what it meant exactly.

I don't understand your obssession with Mark Urban. Just becuse his views coincide with yours, does not make them more reliable than other sources. I haven't read his works, but I have read many accounts of this conflict, including Soviet ones (and used them to source my contributions), and my opinions of this war are not what you imagine them to be. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My chief complaint about the article -- and I'm supported by other Wikipedia contributors here -- is that it doesn't tell the truth.
Your article is not adequately footnoted. References #1 through #4 do not carry enough weight to support the thesis which you and Scythian1 state at the start of the article. I wish you would read more about the conflict...Mark Urban's books are a great place to start. He did two of them, one published in 1987 and the other published in 1991.
I could address your views concerning the military history of the war on a point by point basis, but I don't think I'd get far with you. If you read Urban's books first, then we talk more constructively.
Again, the war consisted chiefly of skirmishes, and nothing more. More Soviet troops died each year at home from industrial accidents and suicide than were killed in Afghanistan. The Soviet army ended the war in exactly the same position it started: firmly entrenched, not in any danger of being displaced, and chasing the rebels around without any decisive result. Even Lester Grau's books support me on this count.
What happened between 1980-89 was largely an analog of what is happening in Afghanistan today, except that the '80s fighting was more intense and widespread than that engaged by NATO today. Gorbachev pulled the troops out because of broad changes in his domestic and foreign policy agenda. NATO forces will probably leave Afghanistan in the future for similar reasons. When NATO leaves Afghanistan, Karzai's forces will rule the cities and provincial capitals uncontested, and the Taliban and their allies will control the countryside. That's the way Afghanistan was in 1989, and it's pretty much how power has been divided between the central government and the provincial tribes thoughout centuries of Afghan history.
Kenmore (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - There is absolutely no basis for comparing the Soviet government's position post-1989 with the Argentine government's position after the Falkland War. The disempowerment of the Soviet government after 1989 was rooted in chaotic political and economic forces which were unleashed by Gorbachev's ill fated reforms in the 1980s. This political and economic chaos had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Gorbachev pulled his army out of Afghanistan as part of a far reaching program of retrenchment forced on him by the USSR's economic condition.

Because of the deteriorating economic situation in the USSR in the 1980s, Gorbachev needed desperately to come to terms with Ronald Reagan, NATO and China. Pulling his troops out of Afghanistan was one of many things Gorbachev did to sanitize the international atmosphere so that Reagan, NATO and China would be more likely to make diplomatic peace with Moscow. Gorbachev didn't have much choice here because the USSR had lost the economic resources necessary to perpetuate competition with its rivals on a worldwide basis.

Reuveny and Prakash's article is definitely a fringe theory. It is the only article of its sort published since 1989. I know this for a fact because I have been reading about this subject since the 1980s, when the war itself was in progress. Kenmore (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contributing

Certainly I will take a look --Tirronan (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the article and I like the citations. --Tirronan (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French invasion of Russian

I'll expand the rest of the article about the same way that I have been. However I only have Riehn as a source, and while he is exceedingly unkind to most of the commanders on either side it bothers me to have only 1 source. I don't have either a French or a Russian view or bias, I'm American and not a fan of Napoleon's operations there as he showed no ability to adapt to what should have been obvious to him. Well then again he didn't seem to have many answers to the improved armies that faced him after 1808. Please feel free to contribute, I can use the help. Tirronan (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the things that it took me awhile to learn is that no editor owns an article. If you can bring things to light that I haven't and you have a good sources by all means please do. I don't have much use for POV warriors so make sure you just stick with the facts but other than that I don't have much of a problem.

Lets talk about the Russian military successes, during the invasion, this was a very very strange campaign where the things that should have mattered really didn't and many small things done well were much more important. All the things that served the Grande Armee well in Europe instead lead to huge losses, lack of disapline, lack of a organised looting dispersal system wasted supplies where none should have been. So many of these things went right for the Russians, light cav was consistantly better than French units (excepting some German units) which limited any ability for the French to figure out where the Russians were and I always got the impression they were staggering around blind.

The collasp of the North and South operations were huge, and in many ways the French "victory" at Kaluga was more important in damning the majority of the rementents of the French army to death than Borodino. Where the Berazina was concerned it was another French victory they could hardly stand any more such victories. What rolled out the victory was a wreck that crawled into Germany already rising in revolt. The Russians won by existing regardless of any victory they survived in the same winter that crushed the grand armee and they kept supplied in that hellish summer that killed the vast majority long before winter got hold on the march back. Stopping supplies and constant harrasment were more important than set peice battles would be. Like I said it was a very strange campaign and all the more important because of it. Tirronan (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Krasnoi/archive1. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SMS Talk 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)