Ok now I like how you said ending the holocaust cause the soveit gulags were as bad if not worse my grandfather a pole was captured In the first days of the war by the Nazis then exchaged to the Russians and then sent to a gulag for refusing to fight in the red army. But after the war his family assimilated into soveit soceity and now I consider my self russian and all my relatives served in the red army for 2 generations now

Well I am Russian and I find that although the holocaust was horrible and horrible it's importance is exagerated instead of Hitler killed milloins of jews and was responsible. For ww2 it should be Hitler was responsible for a horrible war that killed millons including milloins of Jews killed in the holocaust

Roads to Moscow - good song. Anyone ever hear it?

ps ignore the troll

Ok

@OMGNSO
"Why would it be impossible to alter the language to alter feelings? Take swear words for example: Without swear words it would be nearly impossible to express deep anger.
Once you can't express a feeling society can't cultivate it so it would fade away."

That sounds very much like the Sapir-Whorf hypothisis, which was very popular in Orwell's day but has since then be discredited by linguists such as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. In a nutshell thoughts exist separately from words. Thus just because we don't have a word to express a concept doesn't mean we can't think of it.

To elaborate, if we have a concept but no word for it, we may either coin a new word or assign that meaning to existing words.
Take the "euphemism treadmill" as an example: (this quote is from Wikedia)
"Words originally intended as euphemisms may lose their euphemistic value, acquiring the negative connotations of their referents. In some cases, they may be used mockingly and become dysphemisms."
Many words that today are considered politically incorrect, started out as neutral terms. For example, lame - crippled - handicapped - disabled - physically challenged (or even differently abled".

Of course the Poles would say they were the biggest victims of WWII, it detracts from the fact that they participated in massive pogroms against Jews both during and immediately after the war. For example, Germans arrived the village of Jedwabne and found that the 1,500 Jews there were already butchered by the townspeople. Poles also helped the Germans isolate and locate Jews. Notice in modern day Poland there are almost no Jews, and anti-Semitism remains rampant. Yet Poles will incredibility claim they are blameless victims and say the Soviets, the country that liberated them, were "worse than the Nazis". Poles also refuse to apologize for the 80,000 Russian POWs they slaughtered in 1920-1921. Blameless victims, always.

I've heard bad things about Chomsky's linguistics, from an empirical point of view. Read some of it, liked it! But experts say he's not very scientific and his linguistics is very Eurocentric (dude can't fit Asian languages into his universal grammar paradigm).

Okay I don't know of the poland you speak but the nazi's were an enemy here is an analogie to diplomacy when you suffer a devestating stab you don't admire the stabber you admire the person who helps you fight off. And if you wanted to say that I am being biast that is not the case I am not polish I am Russian and I feel that the holocausts importance is exagerated and that stalins gulags were just as bad if not worse

denis, stop feeding the troll, please. We're having a nice discussion here!

Troll?

@Acosmist "I've heard bad things about Chomsky's linguistics, from an empirical point of view. Read some of it, liked it! But experts say he's not very scientific and his linguistics is very Eurocentric"

That's interesting. I had the impression that he is considered the giant of his field. Can you suggest a linguist who has more respect than Chomsky within the scientific community?

Why would I do that? Argument from authority is not valid.

It is valid when the topic of discussion of whether or not someone is considered an authority .I am enquiring about your claim that "experts say he's not very scientific..."

Marc Miyake, for one. Of course, experts can disagree! And he himself is an expert. That does not mean that everything he says is true.

Unless only European languages count.

Btw I understand that his theories have criticisms, but so do many respected theories. However the fact that his universal grammar is not proved does not invalidate his criticisms of the Sapir-Whof hypothesis.

I am not really in a position to evaluate Marc Miyake's criticisms of universal grammar (I have no expertise). Here's an article which discusses Miyake's point of view (albeit critical).
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000570.html

One last thing I asked you to name a linguist with more respect than Chomsky and you named Marc Miyake. Marc Miyaki's current occupation (according to Linkedin) is Language Learning Specialist at Franklin Electronic Publishers. Yes he has a PhD in linguistics but he is not really in the same league as Chomsky.

I'm no authority on linguistics so I won't throw any thing at either spyman or acosmist.

However, I will say that WWI was a huge bloody mess. milliolns and millsions of men died simply because a terrorist group assassinated an Austro-Hungarian official. That, I believe, is ridiculous.

Back on the topic of Orwell, seeing that alot of states are outlawing the death penalty. how do you think that fits into orwell's predictions? It's seems to contradict it's self. I know that just a little while ago the governor of my state (CT) vetoed a bill that would have out lawed the death penalty. It just seems ironic to me that as people try to grab for power they would eliminate the most useful form of getting rid of someone.

Yes out lawing death penalty is against his predictions look at the numerous excecutions in animal farm

If people in power want to get rid of people they won't necessarily use a judicial execution.

@jman777
It seems to me that the assassination of the Arch-Duke was merely the excuse for Germany to start a war.
The real cause of World War 1 was rampant militarism, nationalism, a tangled set of treaties and a general building up of war material and hatred.

At least that's how I was taught.

Yeah, but the assassination created the opportunity. If it wasn't for that they may have kept on building for quite a few more years, perhaps even eliminating the chance of a second world war.

But who knows, it's ridiculous to try and contemplate what MIGHT have happened.

It might be ridiculous, but it is extremely interesting.
:)

Amazing how many people think it made no difference if the Nazis won WWII. Are you all from Stormfront?

A general war in Europe was all but inevitable due to the Kaiser's erratic and misguided foreign policy. The immediate cause of the war needs to be blamed on Austria, which had made up its mind years before to take Serbia down a peg. After the assassination of the Archduke, who would have been a pretty disastrous leader in his own right, Austria sent an ultimatum to Serbia on how to catch punish the assassins. The majority of the ultimatum was accepted by Serbia, but one point about Austrian police going to Serbia or Serbian police being under Austrian authority or something was rejected, not surprisingly. It was a rather drastic violation of Serbian sovereignty, and the fact that Austria demanded it ought to show that they wanted a war more than a simple criminal case resolution. When the Kaiser heard that Serbia had accepted most of the ultimatum, he even said that there was no longer a case for war. Franz Joseph and members of the tottering Austrian bureaucracy had other ideas, however.

So, Germany set up the conditions, but the actual war started the way it did because of that very complicated and loony creature Austria-Hungary.

Agree, Germany and Austro-Hungary agreed long before hand to make unacceptable demands on Serbia with the ultimatum to ensure a war. Austro-Hungary played a hand in igniting the previous Balkan wars of 1912 but thought Serbia - the free Slav state, would be defeated. Instead they emerged victorious, and heroically held off the putative Austrian invasion. So heroically that an Austrian general had a monument build in honor of their enemies.

Furthermore, the Emperor visited Bosnia, a territory held in chains by the Austrians, on St. Vid's day, the most holy day of the year for Serbs (to add maximum insult). Ferdinand also went there with minimum security, and was warned by numerous people about the dangers of going there to oversee military manuevers.

It looks from that post like you think Franz Ferdinand was Emperor of Austria. Now, I'm sure you can't be that mistake, Slavophillic student of history that you are.