Fragmenti

[Radoye]

Vidis, moguce da si u pravu, sad kad bolje pogledam - mada sam se poveo za originalnim potpisom slike, 1944, P-63, zene-piloti transfer iz Niagara Falls,  NY za Aljasku gde preuzimaju Rusi. No deluje da su na slici stvarno rane USAAC oznake, sto bi ih smestilo negde u ranu 1942 (ocigledno je da su Ameri vec stupili u rat, jer su ovi u kanadskom vazdusnom prostoru - sto pre Perl Harbura bas i nije praktikovano).

[namenski]

8 hours ago, Radoye said:

(ocigledno je da su Ameri vec stupili u rat, jer su ovi u kanadskom vazdusnom prostoru - sto pre Perl Harbura bas i nije praktikovano).

Marketing, covece, marketing , a i verovatno se trazilo da opsti utisak bude sto spektakularniji: Bell pogon kod vojno-civilnog aerodroma Niagara Falls zapocet je u drugoj polovini 1940. godine, da bi sa do tada nesto vise od 1,000 zaposlenih, do 1944. narastao na skoro 50,000 ljudi i poprilicno znacajno se upisao u istoriju americkog, a i sire vazduhoplovstva - pored preko 13,000 proizvedenih P-39/63, zapalo mu je da bude rodno mesto prvog americkog operativnog mlaznjaka, P-59, ali i aviona kojim je Jaeger prvi probio zvucni duvar, pored poprilicno znacajnog doprinosa Bell Development Center razvoju i usavrsavanju P-51 i jos po nekog...

A sve to zahvaljujuci cinjenici da je zapadnoevropljanima pocetkom 1940. doslo iz dupeta u glavu i da su shvatili da su ocajno kratki sa modernim avionima: prva britanska narudzba, skoro 700 komada bila je potpisana bukvalno na nevidjeno, sledili su jos ocajniji Francuzi i Bell je dosao u situaciju da od skoro riknule firme sa programom Airacuda koji je vec bio na izdisaju, stane na noge i bude u situaciji da prvi i trenutno jedini ponudi lovacki avion koliko-toliko odgovarajuci uslovima novog rata.

Cudno, a mozda i nije, P-39 je koncepcijski bio - Evropljanin: nastao pod uticajem spanskih iskustava - razvoj prethodnika poceo je pocetkom 1937, ali i nastojanjem samog Larija Bela koga je Ruzvelt poslao u obilazak Nemacke i njene vazduhoplovne industrije i koji je tamo uvideo da uprkos americkim mogucnostima, pa i tehnoloskim prednostima, Amerika opasno zaostaje u razvoju modernog lovca.

 

Sve na stranu, prica o P-39 je odlican, skoro idealan odgovor na idimidodji mi price o tome koji je avion bolji/najbolji.

Obaska sto je odgovor do bola prost: najbolji je onaj kojeg imas dovoljno, u pravo vreme i na pravom mestu.

 

P-39 je za Britance bio nedonosce, za Amerikance resenje u nuzdi na pocetku rata i po sistemu seci usi, krpi dupe, pa su tako na Novoj Gvineji koristili avione namenjene Britaniji i preusmerene na Tihi okean unapred znajuci da ce svaki 5 morati da rasture ne bi li odrzavali ostatak.

Ali je zato u CCCP doziveo zlatno doba: od 10 vodecih sovjetskih asova dobra polovina letela je na P-39.

U cemu je stvar pokazuje ovlas, izmedju ostalog, prisecanje lika po imenu Helmut Lipfert dodeljenog 6./JG52 krajem 1942. 

 

 

Lipfert nije pripadao staroj gardi Experten, u borbu je dosao kada su stvari na Istocnom frontu za Nemce vec kretale nizbrdo, tako da u njegovu karijeru ne spadaju laki dani 1941. i dobrog dela 1942.

To mu nije smetalo da rat zavrsi sa upisane 202 vazdusne pobede i ostace kao jedno od onih cuvenih neresenih pitanja za sva vremena ne vrede li te pobede vise od pobeda leta 1941, jer je Lipfert protiv sebe vec imao jedno drugacije Crveno vazduhoplovstvo.
O tome govori i podatak da je i sam obaran 15 puta.
Sto je pri tom ostao ziv i stavise nepovredjen ima da zahvali i sreci ali i umecu koje ce tesko ko da spori ovom posleratnom ucitelju, nedovoljno interesantnom za posleratne pozive da pomogne u formiranju hladnoratovske Luftwaffe.
Borio se do samog kraja: 8. aprila 1945. upisao je svoju jubilarnu dvestotu pobedu, a samo par dana kasnije, 16. aprila, oborio svoju poslednju zrtvu, jednog Jak-9.
Zakacio je i nesto Zapadnih saveznika, zapali su mu dok su nemacki lovci pokusavali da se suprotstave napadima na rumunsku naftu, 3 B-24, i ne znam sada koliko – ne mnogo u svakom slucaju – P-51.
Leteo je tokom mozda najkrvavijih i najmanje medijski eksploatisanih borbi WW2, onih u zimu 1945. u Madjarskoj; medijsku paznju je odvukla takozvana Ardenska protivofanziva.
Taj i takav Lipfert svedoci da je leta 1944. – bio besan.
Po prvi put.
U Das Tagebuch des Hauptmann Lipfert kaze da je u jednom od naleta pokusao da izbegne napade sovjetskih lovaca penjuci se brzo na visinu od 4,500 metara, ali da su ga tamo cekali P-39; nastavlja da se to ponovilo i na 6,000 metara.
Priznaje da tog dana iz tri pokusaja njegova grupa koja je pratila bombardere – sa sve bombarderima naravno – nije uspela da predje liniju fronta.
Priznaje da se iz borbe izvlacio i kuci vracao najvecom brzinom i ne ustrucava se da upotrebi izraze kao je bekstvo…
Otuda ono besan: kaze da je po sletanju bio besan jer se nikada pre toga nije dogodilo da nas Sovjeti potpuno sprece u izvrsavanju zadatka….

 

Datum kada je napravljena ova fotografija je 20. april 1945, dakle nekoliko dana pred kraj rata, negde u Austriji.
Prvi s leva je kapetan Heinz Ewald, 84 pobede, u sredini je Lipfert sa svoje 202, do njega porucnik Peter Düttmann sa 152 pobede, inace jos jedan iz nemacke druge postave, one koja je u rat stupila 1942/3, i sam obaran 17 puta….
Asova koliko ‘oces….

Obaska koliko je to, mlado i nemilice troseno, jos aprila 1945. dale 20-ak dana pre kraja rata, bilo zaludjeno,

 

Koliko su stvari sa naoruzanjem uslovne, vidi se na jednom drugom avionu isporucivanom Sovjetskom Savezu, inace legendi Zapada – lovcu Spitfire.

 

 

Stjepan Pavlovic Suprun ostace zapisan kao prvi sovjetski pilot koji je leteo Spitfajerom.
U malo neobicnim okolnostima, doduse: u doba nemacko sovletskog prijateljstva, marta 1941. godine, dakle kada su - sto neko rece - i vrane na galicijskim topolama znale da se nesto sprema, Suprunu je kao clanu jedne od brojnih sovjetskih delegacija omoguceno da leti jednim zaplenjenim Spitfire Mk1.
U sred Nemacke.
Nemci su zabelezili, a Britanci vole da i danas navode Suprunove utiske o avionu, narocito u svetlu cinjenice da ce samo koji mesec kasnije Sovjeti da vape za svakom vrstom pomoci.
Bilo kako bilo, Suprun je hvalio pokretljivost, upravljivost i stabilnost Spitfajera, ali je pre svega zamerio nedostatku mitraljeza tezeg kalibra i topova.
Prigovorio je, navodno, i suvise maloj kolicini goriva, odnosno doletu.

Nema, ni danas preterano mnogo sovjetsko/ruskih svedocanstava, ali svedocenje jednog Poljaka koji, kako to vec s Poljacima ide, nema previse razloga da navija za Sovjete, kaze, otprilike i kada je o jednom pojedinacnom slucaju rec: jedna od jedinica naoruzanih Spitfajerima bio je 36. lovacki puk koji je februara 1943. preimenovan u 57. gardijski lovacki puk. Jedinica je decembra 1942, dakle u vreme kada su Nemci vec bili opkoljeni kod Staljingrada, povucena sa fronta radi dopune.
Odrediste je bio Baku gde se treniralo na jednom jedinom Spitfire MkVB, i komentari pilota su mogli da se saberu u izjave koje su potvrdjivale brzinu, pokretljivost i vatrenu moc. Slagali su se da se radi od avionu lakom za upravljanje i koji je znao da oprosti i tezu gresku pilota, ali su se slagali i u tome, a ne treba zaboraviti da je to bilo pre nego sto je Spitfire postao posleratna medijska zvezda, da, sve u svemu, avion nije nista posebno, naravno uporedjen sa onim sto su oni imali prilike da vide.
Lavockinovi i Jakovljev lovci su bili jednaki ili superiorni po preformansama osim Spitfajerove vece brzine penjanja, dok su ozbiljne primedbe pale na raspored naoruzanja koje se kod Spitfajera nalazilo u krilima i koje je, po sovjetskim iskustvima i zbog rastojanja od preko 4 metra izmedju mitraljeza, bilo ozbiljan problem prilikom gadjanja iz blizine.
Ne treba smetnuti sa uma da su ovakvi komentari dolazili od pilota koji su na preobuku na Spitfajere dosli posle borbenog turnusa na – I-16.
Radio, iako nepouzdan, bio je bolji nego nikakav.
Pocetkom 1943. iz Teherana je poceo dovoz Spitfajera kojih je bilo dovoljno da se opreme dva lovacka puka, pa je, aprila 1943, 57. puk dospeo na Kuban gde je usao u sastav 3. vazdusne armije.
Gubici u prvim borbama su bili znacajni, a kao razlog se pominje losa taktika, sta god to znacilo, a Spitfajeri su bili izlozeni toliko cestim napadima Jakova da je za susedne vazduhoplovne jedinice moralo da bude upriliceno nekoliko demonstracionih letova kako bi se ljudi upoznali sa izgledom novih aviona koji je, naime, po opstoj tvrdnji bio previse slican Bf 109.
Jedan od pilota 57. lovackog puka je pomenuto iskustvo imao prilike da dozivi dva puta kao i da uspe da se, ostecen, dva puta prisilno spusta.
Posle 2 meseca letenja na Spitfajerima, puk je povucen i prenaoruzan Aerokobrama.

Bilo kako bilo, poklonu se u zube ne gleda: april 1945, piloti i zemaljsko osoblje 26. gardijskog lovackog puka i - Spitfire Mk IXE, a od zlih jezika poticu price da su Angloamerikanci Sovjetima  isporucivali drugorazrednu robu, P-40, Harikene, itd, itd...

Jednostavno, isporucivalo se ono cega je bilo, a u vremena najvece sovjetske potrebitosti boljeg i viskova nisu imali ni oni sami.

Kasnije, vec negde 1943, Sovjeti su vec imali dovoljno i sve vise sopstvenih proizvoda kojima su mogli da se na ravnoj nozi suprotstave, a po mnogocemu i nadmase Nemce.

I to ne samo u gvozdjuriji.

[namenski]

Na dva kraja Evrope:

 

Ил-2 se vraca kuci...

 

HP Halifax se vratio.

 

[namenski]

 

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by namenski

[namenski]

Koncert za drustvo malo ali odabrano:

Otto Moll, bivsi radnik gradskog zelenila, SS-Hauptscharführer, samo u Ausvicu zasluzan za licnih ceni se cak na 20,000 zrtava, sa sve bacanjem zivih ljudi u vatru, sudjen, osudjen i obesen zbog nepodopstina u Dachau poslednjih dana rata;

Rudolf Hoess, komandant Ausvica u 2 mandata, SS-Obersturmbannführer, izrucen Poljskoj, obesen u Ausvicu;

Richard Baer, komandant Ausvica u 1 mandatu, istakao se u jos nekoliko logora, uspesno se kao sumski radnik snalazio do 1960, slucajno prepoznat, jos uspesnije izbegavao sudjenje, da bi ga verovatno i skroz izbegao da ga nije, 1963. godine, strefilo srce;

Josef Kramer, jos 1 komandant Ausvica, Bergen Belsena, SS-Hauptsturmführer, uredno obesen;

Franz Hössler, takodje 1 uspesna karijera, osnivanje eutanazija centra u Ausvicu i jos po nesto, obesen;

Josef Mengele, SS-Hauptsturmführer, Todesengel, 

sa saradnicima...

[namenski]

Jedna o top 10 fotografija WW2:

 

 

Hajnrih Himler u obilasku logora sovjetskih ratnih zarobljenika; uz sav arijevski imidz Himlera i pratnje mu, na ovoj fotografiji je tesko odrediti ko je pobednik, bez obzira na sudbinu koja je najverovatnije snasla zarobljenike sa fotografije.

Steta sto ce ime coveka sa druge strane zice zauvek ostati nepoznato.

Edited August 19, 2019 by namenski

[hazard]

http://glineq.blogspot.com/2019/09/capitalism-alone-four-important-but.html

 

Quote

Capitalism, Alone: Four important--but somewhat hidden--themes

 

 

I review here four important, but perhaps not immediately apparent, themes from my Capitalism, Alone.  The book contains many other, more topical, subjects that are likely to attract readers’ and reviewers’ attention much more than the somewhat abstract or philosophical issues briefly reviewed here.

 

1. Capitalism as the only mode of production in the world. During the previous high point of the British-led globalization, capitalism shared the world with various feudal or feudal-like systems characterized with unfree labor: forced labor was abolished in Austria-Hungary in 1848, serfdom in Russia in 1861, slavery ended in the US in 1865, and in Brazil only in 1888, And labor tied to land continued to exist in India and to a lesser degree in China. Then, after 1917, capitalism had to share the world with communism which, at its peak, included almost a third of the world population. It is only after 1989, that capitalism is not only a dominant, but the sole, system of organizing production (Chapter 1).

 

2. The global historical role of communism. The existence of capitalism (economic way to organize society) throughout the world does not imply that the political systems must be organized in the same way everywhere. The origins of political systems are very different. In China and Vietnam, communism was the tool whereby indigenous capitalism was introduced (explained below). The difference in the “genesis” of capitalism, that is, in the way capitalism was “created” in various countries explains why there are at least two types of capitalism today. I am doubtful that there would ever be a single type of capitalism covering the entire globe.

 

To understand the point about the different origins, one needs to start from the question of the role of communism in global history and thus from the interpretation (histoire raisonéee) of the 20^th century (Chapter 3; Appendix A).

 

There are two major narratives of the 20^th century: liberal and Marxist; they are both “Jerusalem”-like in the Russian philosopher Berdiaff’s terminology. They see the world evolving from less developed toward more developed stages  ending in either a terminus of liberal capitalist democracy or Communism (society of plenty).

 

Both narratives face significant problems in the interpretation of the 20^th century. Liberal narrative is unable to explain the outbreak of the First World War which, given the liberal arguments about the spread of capitalism, (peaceful) trade, and interdependence between countries and individuals that ostensibly abhor conflict should never have happened, and certainly not in the way it did—namely by involving in the most destructive war up to date all advanced capitalism countries. Second, liberal narrative treats both fascism and communism as essentially “mistakes” (cul de sacs) on the road to a chiliastic liberal democracy without providing much of reasoning as to why these two “mistakes” happened. Thus the liberal explanations for both the outbreak of the War and the two “cul de sacs” are often ad hoc, emphasizing the role of individual actors or idiosyncratic events.

 

Marxist interpretation of the 20^th century is much more convincing in both its explanation of World War I (imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism) and  fascism (an attempt by the weakened bourgeoise to thwart left-wing revolutions). But Marxist view is entirely powerless  to explain 1989, the fall of communist regimes, and hence unable to provide any explanation for the role of communism in global history. The fall of communism, in a strict Marxist view of the world, is an abomination, as inexplicable as if a feudal society having had experienced a bourgeois revolution of rights were suddenly to “regress” and to reimpose serfdom and the tripartite class division. Marxism has therefore given up trying to provide an explanation for the 20^th century history.

 

The reason for this failure lies in the fact that Marxism never made a meaningful distinction between standard Marxist schemes regarding the succession of socio-economic formations (what I call the Western Path of Development, WPD) and the evolution of poorer and colonized countries. Classical Marxism never asked seriously whether the WPD is applicable in their case. It believed that poorer and colonized countries will simply follow, with a time lag, the developments in the advanced countries, and that colonization and indeed imperialism will produce  the capitalist transformation of these societies. This was Marx’s explicit view on the role of English colonialism in Asia. But colonialism proved too weak for such a global task, and succeeded in introducing capitalism only in small entropot enclaves such as Hong Kong, Singapore and parts of South Africa.

 

Enabling colonized countries to effect both their social and national liberations  (note there was never a need for the latter in advanced countries) was the world-historical role of communism. It was only Communist or left-wing parties that could prosecute successfully both revolutions. The national revolution meant political independence. The social revolution meant abolishment of feudal growth-inhibiting institutions (power of usurious landlords, labor tied to land, gender discrimination, lack of access to education by the poor, religious turpitude etc.). Communism thus cleared the path for the development of indigenous capitalism. Functionally, in the colonized Third World societies, it played the same role that domestic bourgeoisies played in the West. For indigenous capitalism could be established only once feudal institutions were swept away.

 

The concise definition of communism is hence: communism is a social system that enabled backward and colonized societies to abolish feudalism, regain economic and political independence, and build indigenous capitalism.

 

3. The global dominion of capitalism was made possible thanks to (and in turn it exacerbates) certain human traits that, from an ethical point, are questionable. Much greater commercialization and  greater wealth have in many ways made us more polished in our manners (as per Montesquieu) but have done so using what were traditionally regarded as vices—desire for pleasure, power and profit (as per Mandeville). Vices are both fundamental for hyper-commercialized capitalism to be "born" and are supported by it. Philosophers accept them not because they are by themselves desirable, but because allowing their limited exercise allows the achievement of a greater social good: material affluence (Smith; Hume).

 

Yet the contrast between acceptable behavior in hyper-commercialized world and traditional concepts of justice, ethics, shame, honor, and loss of face, create a chasm which is filled with hypocrisy; one cannot openly accept that one has sold for a sum of money his/her right to free speech or ability to disagree with one’s boss, and thus arises the need to cover up these facts with lies or misrepresentation of reality.

 

From the book (Chapter 5):

 

"The domination of capitalism as the best, or rather the only, way to organize production and distribution seems absolute. No challenger appears in sight. Capitalism gained this position thanks to its ability, through the appeal to self-interest and desire to own property, to organize people so that they managed, in a decentralized fashion, to create wealth and increase the standard of living of an average human being on the planet by many times—something that only a century ago was considered almost utopian.

 

But this economic success made more acute the discrepancy between the ability to live better and longer lives and the lack of a commensurate increase in morality, or even happiness. The greater material abundance did make people’s manners and behavior to each other better: since elementary needs, and much more than that, were satisfied, people no longer needed to engage in a Hobbesian struggle of all against all. Manners became more polished, people more considerate.

 

But this external polish was achieved at the cost of people being increasingly driven by self-interest  alone, even in many ordinary and personal affairs. The capitalist spirit, a testimony to the generalized success of capitalism, penetrated deeply into people’s individual lives. Since extending capitalism to family and intimate life was antithetical to centuries-old views about sacrifice, hospitality, friendship, family ties, and the like, it was not easy to openly accept that all such norms had become superseded by self-interest. This unease created a huge area where hypocrisy reigned. Thus, ultimately, the material success of capitalism came to be associated with a reign of half-truths in our private lives."

 

4. Capitalist system cannot be changed. The dominion of hyper-commercial capitalism was established thanks to our desire to permanently keep on improving our material conditions, to keep on getting richer, a desire which capitalism satisfies the best. This has led to the creation of a system of values that puts monetary success as its top. In many ways it is a desirable evolution because “believing” in money alone does away with other traditional and discriminatory hierarchical markers.

 

In order for capitalism to exist it needs to grow and to expand to ever new areas and new products. But capitalism exists not outside of us, as a external system. It is individuals, that is, us, who, in our daily lives, create capitalism and provide it with new fields of action—so much that we had transformed our homes into capital, and our free time into a resource. This extraordinary commodification of almost all, including what used to be very private, activities was made possible by our internalization of the system of values where money acquisition is placed on the pinnacle. If this were not the case, we would not have commodified practically all that can be (as of now) commodified.

 

Capitalism, in order to expand, needs greed. Greed has been entirely accepted by us. The economic system and the system of values are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Our system of values enables hyper-commercialized capitalism to function  and expand. It then follows that no change in the economic system can be imagined without a change in the system of values that underpins it, which the system promotes, and with which we are, in our everyday activities, fully comfortable. But to produce such a change in values seems, at present, to be an impossible task. It has been tried before and ended in the most ignominious failure. We are thus locked in capitalism. And in our activities, day in, day out, we support and reinforce it.

 

Izašla je i knjiga

[kr en]

 

[hazard]

Dining with Stalin

 

 

[eumeswil]

 

[Bujodrag]

Sećam se nekog starog članka ili čak emisije negde gde je neko prilično inteligentno uporedjivao Orvelov i i Hakslijev svet i zaključio, čini  se, da je hakslijev opasniji i realniji.

Ako se neko seti, nek javi.

[eumeswil]

Možda na ovo misliš.

 

https://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs-orwell/

[namenski]

 

[namenski]

[namenski]

 

 

August Landmesser, Hamburg 1936. godine, brodogradiliste B&V, svecanost prigodom porinuca nekog vaznog broda.

Poginuo 1944, negde u Jugoslaviji kao pripadnik Wehrmacht-a.

Edited November 29, 2019 by namenski