NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, yes. They invaded Poland, didn't they?

If they didn't want a war, they should've butt out when it came to Poland. Hey, how come the Soviets didn't get attacked for their invasion of Poland? Oh yeah, they're not German.

why would France start a war with anyone? Everyone knows their only good military leader wasn't actually French. Other than him, they pretty much just stand in a line and watch the germans march around them. Or in the case of WWII, they watch the germans march through poland, czechoslovakia, probably some more before marching around.

/me is confused.

how exactly did france and Uk start the war?

If they didn't want a war, they should've butt out when it came to Poland. Hey, how come the Soviets didn't get attack for their invasion of Poland? Oh yeah, they're not German.

Ah, so it's not the aggressor who's at fault, but the defenders. Brilliant logic, Watson.

Ah, so it's not the aggressor who's at fault, but the defenders. Brilliant logic, Watson.

They declared war on Germany, not the other way 'round.

They declared war on Germany, not the other way 'round.

By that logic, Germany is indeed to blame for the begining of WW I :rolleyes:

By that logic, Germany is indeed to blame for the begining of WW I :rolleyes:
ZOMFG! :eek:

That was the best comeback I have seen in more than a year on NS. May I ask you why you aren't debating more?

Yeah, but most of those countries didn't spend their ENTIRE EXISTENCE as fucking savage totalarianists.

The fact of the matter is, as in any army, the vast majority of soldiers on EACH side were just trying to make it through. Rape and other atrocities have occurrred in every war waged by every army throughout history.

Now if you said the LEADERS of the former USSR were savage totalitarianists then you'd be on to something. Painting an entire people with the same brush just shows ignorance.

By that logic, Germany is indeed to blame for the begining of WW I :rolleyes:

Fine. They won that one anyway. Some politicians decide to give up because they thought they were losing.

You mean Hitler (who murdered 6 million) is worse than Stalin (who murdered 20 million)? Silling twisting by the left-wing media, I'm afraid. They're obsessed with smearing the Right-wing, which is why we see Nazi attrocities on the news every day, we have a Holocaust Day, etc. Yet,the considerably more significant crimes perpetrated by their own Left-wing comrades are ignored. I think it's disgusting that the media have done this - erasing 20 million murders from existence, so it fits with their Leftist agenda.
Learn to be more open-minded.Really? If you use only the absolute numbers of victims, you have a case. It melts away when you compare the time that it took them:

20 million people / 31 years in office = 0.645 million people / year
5 to 6 million jews / 12 years in office = 0.4 to 0.5 million jews / year

So, if you don't ignore the fact that the Nazis killed about 2.7 to 4.5 non-jews in addition to the 5 to 6 million jews, you get the lowest figure of 0.642 million people / year and the highest figure of 0.875 million people / year.

Of course, I didn't fact check your numbers for Stalin, so they may be inaccurate.

ZOMFG! :eek:

That was the best comeback I have seen in more than a year on NS. May I ask you why you aren't debating more?

*lol
Work tends to interfere... ;)

wellllll technically the serbs refused an ultimatium that they knew would lead to war so you could blame it on them. No denying the Germans wanted them to refuse it though so they could go to war. sound familiar 20 years later anyone? O, you want Czech? well....I suppose...but only this once. No, you can't have any more land. O, going to war are we?

Fine. They won that one anyway. Some politicians decide to give up because they thought they were losing.

You may want to look up the definitions of "to win" and "to surrender" in a dictionary at some stage.
The USA didn't "win" the Vietnam war either, did they now? Same as Germany didn't "win" WW I

The fact of the matter is, as in any army, the vast majority of soldiers on EACH side were just trying to make it through. Rape and other atrocities have occurrred in every war waged by every army throughout history.

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the Russians managed to commit the greatest mass rape in history. :rolleyes:

Fine. They won that one anyway. Some politicians decide to give up because they thought they were losing.I suppose you've never lived in a city where the skeletonizing of a horse on by hungry citizens is a common sight.

You may want to look up the definitions of "to win" and "to surrender" in a dictionary at some stage.
The USA didn't "win" the Vietnam war either, did they now? Same as Germany didn't "win" WW I

They won on the field. Not the soldier's fault that the government stabbed them in the back. Yes, I said it.

I suppose you've never lived in a city where the skeletonizing of a horse on by hungry citizens is a common sight.

Not really. I don't see what that has to do with WWI.

They won on the field. Not the soldier's fault that the government stabbed them in the back. Yes, I said it.

There are still people around who believe the old propaganda lie of the Dolchstoss???

Oh, how cute...

Not really. I don't see what that has to do with WWI.There's a picture of that happening in Munich during the latter days of the war. But I suppose you wouldn't know that the British blockade was starving Germany...

Not really. I don't see what that has to do with WWI.

The population was starving due to the war and the cut off supplies. They wanted the war to end. And as a country is made up of its population, you could say Germany rather lost the war than starved to death.

There are still people around who believe the old propaganda lie of the Dolchstoss???
Hey, ask any given US Rightwinger why they lost Vietnam.

There are still people around who believe the old propaganda lie of the Dolchstoss???

Oh, how cute...

Yep, and no amount of facts or logic will get through to someone who is in denial up to their earlobes (speaking about Greater Alemannia here). It's mildy amusing isn't it?

They won on the field. Not the soldier's fault that the government stabbed them in the back. Yes, I said it.I'm not in the least surprised that you know less about WWI than you know about WWII...

Hey, ask any given US Rightwinger why they lost Vietnam.

Well, I guess disappointments like that are in store for you if you think wars are won by the military...

Yep, and no amount of facts or logic will get through to someone who is in denial up to their earlobes (speaking about Greater Alemannia here). It's mildy amusing isn't it?
Funniest thing is that he's Australian, and not really German.

Hey, ask any given US Rightwinger why they lost Vietnam.

we lost vietnam because the military couldn't do what it needed to do (cambodia and laos) because the stoned hippies back home wouldn't allow it. Instead of thanking the soldiers for fighting for America they spit on them and called them baby killers. Kind of like what is happening now in Iraq, only a bit more veiled. The dems in office now were the same ones dropping acid in the 70's they just wear a shirt and tie now instead of tye dye

we lost vietnam because the military couldn't do what it needed to do (cambodia and laos) because the stoned hippies back home wouldn't allow it. Instead of thanking the soldiers for fighting for America they spit on them and called them baby killers. Kind of like what is happening now in Iraq, only a bit more veiled. The dems in office now were the same ones dropping acid in the 70's they just wear a shirt and tie now instead of tye dye

That's what I meant about the military not winning wars. Populations do.

...the stoned hippies back home wouldn't allow it. Instead of thanking the soldiers for fighting for America they spit on them and called them baby killers. Kind of like what is happening now in Iraq, only a bit more veiled...
Hehehehe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9F)

That's what I meant about the military not winning wars. Populations do.


yup. if the population isn't behind you, then the military had a very small window to get it done before things start to go bad for them.

yup. if the population isn't behind you, then the military had a very small window to get it done before things start to go bad for them.

If the population isn't behnd the military, the military has no basis for its actions, either. It would be acting out of self-interest.

If the population isn't behnd the military, the military has no basis for its actions, either. It would be acting out of self-interest.

unles of course the population has no idea what is going on and is forcefed garbage by a liberal media trying to convince them that we're 100% wrong ;)

unles of course the population has no idea what is going on and is forcefed garbage by a liberal media trying to convince them that we're 100% wrong ;)

It's called "democracy"
Informed or uninformed, the population gets to decide. I thought that's what you people were so proud of?

It's called "democracy"
Informed or uninformed, the population gets to decide. I thought that's what you people were so proud of?


inmo if you don't know whats going on, you shouldn't be allowed to made decisions that will impact other people. Fuck up your own life as much as you want, but dont' make it easier for insurgents to kill my friends, or shoot down my brother.

inmo if you don't know whats going on, you shouldn't be allowed to made decisions that will impact other people. Fuck up your own life as much as you want, but dont' make it easier for insurgents to kill my friends, or shoot down my brother.

That was pretty much the attitude shown by most totalitarian regimes in the past.

That was pretty much the attitude shown by most totalitarian regimes in the past.

well i don't have a problem who disagree with me at all, as long as they know what they are talking about. One of the things thats great about US is I can say whatever I want. One of the things that sucks about the US is fucktards can make idiots out of themselves b/c they don't know what they are talking about. Its a very fragile balance ;)

It's called "democracy"
Informed or uninformed, the population gets to decide. I thought that's what you people were so proud of?

The US is not and never has been a Democracy. It is a Representative Republic that uses democratic means at a local and state level to elect the government. There is a huge difference. Pure democracy = mob rule. Our founding fathers were quite wary of this in fact.

Media spin is also NOT part of democracy, be it to the right or to the left.

The US is not and never has been a Democracy. It is a Representative Republic that uses democratic means at a local and state level to elect the government. There is a huge difference. Pure democracy = mob rule. Our founding fathers were quite wary of this in fact.

Media spin is also NOT part of democracy, be it to the right or to the left.

That was implied, sorry for not making myself clearer than that.
And, yes, media are a vital part of each and every democratic system, as they ensure a flow of information between the different sections of society and government.

Hitler didn't murder 6 million, it's estimated that 6 million JEWS were killed during the Holocaust. WW II, initiated by Hitler, cost 62 million lives.

Learn to read sources correctly.
For goodness' sake, you're exactly what I'm talkin about: lying Lefties, who make the Left look good at the expense of the Right.
You could spend all day arguing over who led to what in the war. It's very silly to assume it all started with Germany. My point is that Hitler PURPOSELY murdered 6 million, while Stalin murdered 20 million.
Holocaust:
(from wikipedia)
* 5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews[25]
* 1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)[26]
* 500,000–1.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis
* 200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
* 200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
* 80,000–200,000 Freemasons [27]
* 100,000 communists
* 10,000–25,000 homosexual men
* 2,500-5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses [28]
Stalin's Great Purge (have you heard of this?):
http://www.answers.com/topic/great-purge
The number of people who perished in the purges is subject to hot disputes with death toll estimates ranging from 1 to 100 million people... some sources place the number at about 20 million

For goodness' sake, you're exactly what I'm talkin about: lying Lefties, who make the Left look good at the expense of the Right.
Big words, for someone with three posts with no idea who or what he's talking to.

For goodness' sake, you're exactly what I'm talkin about: lying Lefties, who make the Left look good at the expense of the Right.
You could spend all day arguing over who led to what in the war. It's very silly to assume it all started with Germany. My point is that Hitler PURPOSELY murdered 6 million, while Stalin murdered 20 million.
Holocaust:
(from wikipedia)
* 5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews[25]
* 1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)[26]
* 500,000–1.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis
* 200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
* 200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
* 80,000–200,000 Freemasons [27]
* 100,000 communists
* 10,000–25,000 homosexual men
* 2,500-5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses [28]
Stalin's Great Purge (have you heard of this?):
http://www.answers.com/topic/great-purge
The number of people who perished in the purges is subject to hot disputes with death toll estimates ranging from 1 to 100 million people... some sources place the number at about 20 million

In my experience, the right is quite capable of making itself look bad, it doesn't need my help for that. And please do point out where I did in fact lie.
About the fact that Hitler actively initialised WW II?

And if you care to read through the thread, you'll find that Laerod obligingly posted the numbers of deaths in relation to years in office for both Stalin and Hitler. Hitler still has the higher average.

For goodness' sake, you're exactly what I'm talkin about: lying Lefties, who make the Left look good at the expense of the Right.
You could spend all day arguing over who led to what in the war. It's very silly to assume it all started with Germany. My point is that Hitler PURPOSELY murdered 6 million, while Stalin murdered 20 million.
Holocaust:
(from wikipedia)
* 5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews[25]
* 1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)[26]
* 500,000–1.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis
* 200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
* 200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
* 80,000–200,000 Freemasons [27]
* 100,000 communists
* 10,000–25,000 homosexual men
* 2,500-5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses [28]
Stalin's Great Purge (have you heard of this?):
http://www.answers.com/topic/great-purge
The number of people who perished in the purges is subject to hot disputes with death toll estimates ranging from 1 to 100 million people... some sources place the number at about 20 million

It's pretty much accepted that it was Germany's fault for starting WWII, although some blame could possibly be placed on the Allies for not doing enough to stop Germany.

The Second World War started after the actions of Germany and Japan became intolerable to their neighbours. These aggressive acts had continued for a number of years and were eventually met with armed resistance, after the invasion of Poland in Europe, and the invasion of China in Asia. In both cases the attacks were triggered by expansionistic and racist ruling elites, which had come to power over the preceding decades. The reasons for their rise to power shared some similarities, but were also quite different from country to country.

Big words, for someone with three posts with no idea who or what he's talking to.

everybody has a first post ;)

The Luftwaffe was made up of schoolboys in aircraft. "Here Timmy, go fly over Britain!"

Interesting. I thought the Luftwaffe was one of the largest and most advanced airforces in the world at that time, and at the forefront of technological advancements in aircraft. But maybe I'm just throwing out facts here, and not making huge generalisations, huh?

Fantastic comeback! I have made 3 posts on this site, so my opinions are irrelevant? If I 'don't know what I'm talking about', please refute those statistics, you twisted **** of a Stalinite. Otherwise, stop whining.

everybody has a first post ;)
Of course, and I'm usually the last person to attack a noob for being new. I quite enjoy new people when they hit the ground running, putting up good debates and arguments from the word 'go'.
I just don't like it when they presume things about some of the Elders of the board (so to speak...I am by no means implying things about Cabra's age ;) ).

And if they're also conservatives of any shape or form...well, that just does it.

Fantastic comeback! I have made 3 posts on this site, so my opinions are irrelevant? If I 'don't know what I'm talking about', please refute those statistics, you twisted **** of a Stalinite. Otherwise, stop whining.

You may want to be careful with the flaming there.

For your conveniece, here's the earlier post :

Really? If you use only the absolute numbers of victims, you have a case. It melts away when you compare the time that it took them:

20 million people / 31 years in office = 0.645 million people / year
5 to 6 million jews / 12 years in office = 0.4 to 0.5 million jews / year

So, if you don't ignore the fact that the Nazis killed about 2.7 to 4.5 non-jews in addition to the 5 to 6 million jews, you get the lowest figure of 0.642 million people / year and the highest figure of 0.875 million people / year.

Of course, I didn't fact check your numbers for Stalin, so they may be inaccurate.

That was implied, sorry for not making myself clearer than that.
And, yes, media are a vital part of each and every democratic system, as they ensure a flow of information between the different sections of society and government.

As long as that media is honest and isn't trying to exert political influence. The media is supposed to be a watchdog, not a political party as it has largely become in modern society. I said media SPIN was not part of democracy, not media itself.

Fantastic comeback! I have made 3 posts on this site, so my opinions are irrelevant? If I 'don't know what I'm talking about', please refute those statistics, you twisted **** of a Stalinite. Otherwise, stop whining.

Hey, listen up. I don't think anyone here is denying Stalin was a monster; he was, and the 20-odd million that heb killed are something that should never be forgotten. However, Hitler still takes presedence above Stalin because of the horrific industrilaisation of the Holocaust and the death camps. The Gulags were terrible, as were the Purges, and they killed far more, but they did not have the inhuman, mechanical killing-power that places like Belsen had.

In my experience, the right is quite capable of making itself look bad, it doesn't need my help for that. And please do point out where I did in fact lie.
About the fact that Hitler actively initialised WW II?
You insinuated that Hitler and the Nazis were the cause of every one of the 62 million people who died in WWII. Re-read your post for yourself.
And if you care to read through the thread, you'll find that Laerod obligingly posted the numbers of deaths in relation to years in office for both Stalin and Hitler. Hitler still has the higher average.
Because the Holocaust was extremely efficent (look here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust] - it talks about this). Hitler had basically wiped out every Jew, gypsy, etc by the end of those 12 years - that was the goal.

Hey, listen up. I don't think anyone here is denying Stalin was a monster; he was, and the 20-odd million that heb killed are something that should never be forgotten. However, Hitler still takes presedence above Stalin because of the horrific industrilaisation of the Holocaust and the death camps. The Gulags were terrible, as were the Purges, and they killed far more, but they did not have the inhuman, mechanical killing-power that places like Belsen had.
So, because the Soviets' murder techniques were inefficient and backward they should be forgiven? Give me a break!

Fantastic comeback! I have made 3 posts on this site, so my opinions are irrelevant?
No. Your statistics have already been posted in this very thread. Your opinion was irrelevant because it didn't add to the argument in any way.

If I 'don't know what I'm talking about', please refute those statistics...
That Cabra West is a lefty trying to make Stalin look good? Other than that, you haven't really said all that much...

...you twisted **** of a Stalinite. Otherwise, stop whining.
Hihi. I like you already.

Big words, for someone with three posts with no idea who or what he's talking to.

And post count has what exactly to do with anything? All it shows is that someone has typed a lot and/or been here awhile. It has no bearing on someone's intelligence or character. I don't know you so I'm not implying anything about either the former or the later with regards to you. I just found the comment amusing and smacking of elitism. Thanks for the chuckle.

So, because the Soviets' murder techniques were inefficient and backward they should be forgiven? Give me a break!

Where for a second did I say they should be forgiven? They shouldn't; they were a barbaric and awful crime that is shamefully misremembered. I merely showed why the Holocaust gains more attention; because of the mechanical, inhuman way that the killings were conducted.

You insinuated that Hitler and the Nazis were the cause of every one of the 62 million people who died in WWII. Re-read your post for yourself.

And I stand by that. Hitler was a megalomaniac, he and his NSPAD regime are both directly and indirectly responsible for the death and destruction that Europe saw from 1939 to 1945.


Because the Holocaust was extremely efficent (look here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust] - it talks about this). Hitler had basically wiped out every Jew, gypsy, etc by the end of those 12 years - that was the goal.

So, you're now trying to excuse Hitler's actions because they were designed to be more effective?

And post count has what exactly to do with anything?
There was one thing and one thing only that bothered me about his post, and to which I referred: And that was that he made sweeping statements about characters he has absolutely no idea about.

If he had a thousand posts, chances would be that he'd talked to almost everyone before, had some idea about the political viewpoints of the people here. If he then wanted to call people Stalinists, let him go right ahead (if he can back himself up). I just ask people who are new to remember that you cannot judge people based on one out of many thousands of posts.

Elitism? Meh. As another relatively new guy just said...everyone's had a first post. Even me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8821080#post8821080). And I didn't even know how to format it properly. :p

They won on the field. Not the soldier's fault that the government stabbed them in the back. Yes, I said it.

Ye Gods. There's actually someone alive who still believes that Hitlerite piece of garbage? You continue to surprise me everytime you post a thread, K-P.

It's a load of rubbish. The military would have been destroyed anyway; the allies had US troops and equipment pouring in, and had broken the Hindenberg Line. It might have taken a few more years, but the Allies would have taken Berlin.

No. Your statistics have already been posted in this very thread. Your opinion was irrelevant because it didn't add to the argument in any way.
What? My opinion is that Left-wingers have covered up the genocide that had been committed under their rule. Is that irrelevant?
That Cabra West is a lefty trying to make Stalin look good? Other than that, you haven't really said all that much...
Apart from showing with facts that Left-wingers are more vile and murderous than the 'evil, Bushite Right'. But it looks like you've ignored that.

What? My opinion is that Left-wingers have covered up the genocide that had been committed under their rule. Is that irrelevant?

Apart from showing with facts that Left-wingers are more vile and murderous than the 'evil, Bushite Right'. But it looks like you've ignored that.


if your trying to claim hitler for the right wingers...please don't. I hear enough dumb people everyday comparing bush to hitler, theres no need to make it any easier for them

What? My opinion is that Left-wingers have covered up the genocide that had been committed under their rule. Is that irrelevant?

Apart from showing with facts that Left-wingers are more vile and murderous than the 'evil, Bushite Right'. But it looks like you've ignored that.

Covered up? How so? The facts seem readily available, both to you and me.
And calling left-wingers murderous equals to calling right-wingers Nazis.... generalisations are nobody's friend.

if your trying to claim hitler for the right wingers...please don't. I hear enough dumb people everyday comparing bush to hitler, theres no need to make it any easier for them

I think he seems to be proud of that comparisson for some reason.

And I stand by that. Hitler was a megalomaniac, he and his NSPAD regime are both directly and indirectly responsible for the death and destruction that Europe saw from 1939 to 1945.
And Stalin wasn't? You're starting to ramble. Stalin invaded Poland alongside Germany. Did you know that? Stalin invaded Finland. Did you know that? Stalin was as much of a warmongerer as Hitler.
So, you're now trying to excuse Hitler's actions because they were designed to be more effective?
.... no, i'm refuting your claim that the killing rate of the Holocaust was higher than the Purge's

What? My opinion is that Left-wingers have covered up the genocide that had been committed under their rule. Is that irrelevant?
Met any?
Every single left-winger that I know (Cabra isn't one of them) acknowledges what happened under the various state-capitalist dictators.
I'm using the word "state-capitalist" because that is exactly what they are saying: These guys were not representative of communism or the left in any way, shape or form.
You can argue against that, but please, start a new thread and find yourself some real lefties (anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists most likely, not US Democrats, they're about as left as my right butt cheek). Not my fight anymore.

Apart from showing with facts that Left-wingers are more vile and murderous than the 'evil, Bushite Right'. But it looks like you've ignored that.
You've certainly got the mindset to stay on NSG, so I welcome you. And I suggest you read this wiki-list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies), because these things will all be used against you at some point during debates.

Covered up? How so? The facts seem readily available, both to you and me.
And calling left-wingers murderous equals to calling right-wingers Nazis.... generalisations are nobody's friend.
I'll give you a hint:
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
Then look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_purge
And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Tse_Tung (any mention of the 20 million people this guy starved to death?)
Get it now?

And Stalin wasn't? You're starting to ramble. Stalin invaded Poland alongside Germany. Did you know that? Stalin invaded Finland. Did you know that? Stalin was as much of a warmongerer as Hitler.

.... no, i'm refuting your claim that the killing rate of the Holocaust was higher than the Purge's

Stalin invaded Poland and Finland.
Hitler invaded Poland, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia and Russia, to name a few.
Stalin was a war monger, but on a much smaller scale than Hitler.

The killing rate depends on what sources you base your numbers on, but even in the extremes it's not very much different.

I'll give you a hint:
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
Then look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_purge
And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Tse_Tung (any mention of the 20 million people this guy starved to death?)
Get it now?

Oh, so evil evil wikipedia is trying to cover up the numbers?

I'll give you a tip for the future. When asked for sources on this forum, don't quote wikipedia or else risk ridicule.

Also, Fannytopia, if it makes any difference to your ranting, during the latter stages of the Russo-Finnish conflict, Britain and France were ready to help Finland and declare war on Soviet Russia, and got so far as assembling a plan to go through Sweden and attack the Soviet Forces.

Of course, it was all a cynical ploy to gain access to Finland's Ore reserves, but it was a plan none the less.

Met any?
Every single left-winger that I know (Cabra isn't one of them) acknowledges what happened under the various state-capitalist dictators.
I'm using the word "state-capitalist" because that is exactly what they are saying: These guys were not representative of communism or the left in any way, shape or form.
You can argue against that, but please, start a new thread and find yourself some real lefties (anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists most likely, not US Democrats, they're about as left as my right butt cheek). Not my fight anymore.
Haha, they are very Left-wing. They just have a more extreme, megalomaniac twist to their views - the same as the Nazis.
My point is that it's wrong for the Left to act as if the Right is the cause of all the world's problems (which they do).

Stalin invaded Poland and Finland.
Hitler invaded Poland, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia and Russia, to name a few.
Czechoslovakia was annexed, not invaded. Look it up. Holland, Belgium and France were invaded as a result of the same military manoeuvre.
By your logic, Stalin also invaded Eastern Europe.
Oh, so evil evil wikipedia is trying to cover up the numbers?

I'll give you a tip for the future. When asked for sources on this forum, don't quote wikipedia or else risk ridicule.
No, I'm not referring to wikipedia for it's factual reliability, but to show how little attention the Purge's, etc, receive.

Haha, they are very Left-wing. They just have a more extreme, megalomaniac twist to their views - the same as the Nazis.
My point is that it's wrong for the Left to act as if the Right is the cause of all the world's problems (which they do).

All of them? Really? Must be quite a sight...Where do they do that? I haven't seen that yet...

I'll give you a hint:
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
Then look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_purge
And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Tse_Tung (any mention of the 20 million people this guy starved to death?)
Get it now?

Don't forget Holodomor.

Czechoslovakia was annexed, not invaded. Look it up. Holland, Belgium and France were invaded as a result of the same military manoeuvre.
By your logic, Stalin also invaded Eastern Europe.

No, I'm not referring to wikipedia for it's factual reliability, but to show how little attention the Purge's, etc, receive.

Have you perhaps missed the large number of academic texts being released in the past year or so on Stalin, the Purges and his regime? The same for academic articles in areas like History Today. Attention is rapidly moving from Nazism to Stalinist Russia.

Gulags is an excellent book to look at, for example; it has won several prizes for its attention to detail, and has had a large number of copies sold.

Czechoslovakia was annexed, not invaded. Look it up. Holland, Belgium and France were invaded as a result of the same military manoeuvre.
By your logic, Stalin also invaded Eastern Europe.

No, I'm not referring to wikipedia for it's factual reliability, but to show how little attention the Purge's, etc, receive.



You do know how wikipedia works, right? If you feel it needs more attention, why are you wasting your time here instead of writing an article on it?

Haha, they are very Left-wing. They just have a more extreme, megalomaniac twist to their views - the same as the Nazis.
You have already met the limits of the "left v right" scale. Discard it now.
In the future, refer to specific ideologies and mindsets to avoid confusion.

My point is that it's wrong for the Left to act as if the Right is the cause of all the world's problems (which they do).
And you're using Stalin as a representative of the Left, and Hitler for the Right.

Which suits me nicely, because it illustrates that going down either way is no good.

Now, to step away from the figures, statistics and all that, and hopefully settle this, I'm comparing Nazism with State-Communism alá the dictators of the 20th century:

Nazism is an ideology based on irrationality and feelings (specifically fear and hate).
Communism is based on a (faulty) scientific theory of history, it does therefore rely on reason to a great extent.

Nazism as an ideology has the continuing violence against others at its very core. And unlike communism, this violence is not caused by the actions of the "bad guys", but by their very existence. Jews, Blacks and other undesirables have no way of escaping punishment.
Communism also had violence at its core in form of the armed revolution. However, the revolution is primarily directed at perceived oppressors. Once the oppression is over, the violence no longer has a theoretical foundation. Also, rich people can escape the violence through their actions (ie joining the communist movement, more about that next). Violence has in practice continued, but must be blamed on the individual dictators in question, since it no longer has a basis in the theory.

Nazism is an excluding, racist ideology. At its very core is the idea of "us against them". Jews, Blacks and the like can't become Nazis.
Communism is an all-inclusive, internationalist ideology. Even though Stalin attempted the "Socialism in one country", the goal was ultimately still a world without borders. Anyone, regardless of race or birth, can be a communist.

So there are some points for why Nazism is worse than Communism on a theoretical basis.

As far as the practice is concerned, I think we very much have to distinguish between things like the Holocaust, the Purges and the Great Leap.
The Holocaust was an intentional effort to kill Jews and other undesirables, industrially, in huge numbers, without leaving any alive.
The Purges were the deeds of an insane man, not an ideology. He chose lists of names at random and let them be worked to death or shot. It's quite aside from the politics of it all.
And the Great Leap, as well as the many millions of people who died in other similar "projects", wasn't aimed at people at all. It was the result of the economic unviability of the concepts implemented. Mao didn't sit down and plan 20 million people to starve to death. Mao wanted to reshape the way Chinese society worked, and it went horribly wrong. Again, as far as intention is concerned, that is a long way removed from the Holocaust.
Communism has for most people at its heart a message of compassion and of helping people (you can argue about whether it really does, but ask most commies and they'll probably talk about that). Nazism has at its heart a message of intolerance and hatred.

And before anyone suspects things about my motives, I'm a libertarian, perhaps going as far as being an objectivist at times.

Communism is an all-inclusive, internationalist ideology. Even though Stalin attempted the "Socialism in one country", the goal was ultimately still a world without borders. Anyone, regardless of race or birth, can be a communist.

Which is pointless, because humans are naturally tribalist. You can be as liberal and equlity-loving as you want, but you'll still lean a tiny bit towards your ethnic group or nationality.

Which is pointless, because humans are naturally tribalist. You can be as liberal and equlity-loving as you want, but you'll still lean a tiny bit towards your ethnic group or nationality.

Communism also assumes that human beings are inherently rational and will act for the good of society rather than their own personal gain. It's a theory, and it's deeply flawed.

I cant believe that some people are arguing in favour of monuments celebrating the biggest mass rape of history (soviet soldiers raping german women) and unneccessary loss of millions of innocent lives (after the war is over, when the soviets forced east germans to migrate, much like the armenian genocide).

I cant believe that some people are arguing in favour of monuments celebrating the biggest mass rape of history and unneccessary loss of millions of innocent lives.
Well, given that the monuments aren't mentioning those things, but merely the young men and women who fought and died, you can rest easy.

And as for the "biggest mass rape in history"...that's a pretty momentous claim. Did anyone prove it?

Well, given that the monuments aren't mentioning those things, but merely the young men and women who fought and died, you can rest easy.

And as for the "biggest mass rape in history"...that's a pretty momentous claim. Did anyone prove it?

Considering most soviet soldiers invading participated in such rapes, anything celebrating their victory is celebrating their rapes, I think.
As for the second paragraph, I've read it in news article, I think, which was taken from a book.

I cant believe that some people are arguing in favour of monuments celebrating the biggest mass rape of history (soviet soldiers raping german women) and unneccessary loss of millions of innocent lives (after the war is over, when the soviets forced east germans to migrate, much like the armenian genocide).

*grinds teeth*
They are in favour of monuments which are a part of German and Russian history, celebrating the downfall of Nazi Germany and the sacrifices and bravery of the Russian soldiers who didn't participate in mass rapes. Oops, I forgot... according to Greater Alemannia every single Russian soldier is a rapist, and the Germans however were all decent upstanding people just following orders from a madman. My mistake.

Considering most soviet soldiers invading participated in such rapes, anything celebrating their victory is celebrating their rapes, I think.
And I suppose you have some proof for that then?

I must admit that the only evidence I have to the contrary is various Guido Knopp documentaries as well as my grandmother (whose sister was raped by Soviet soldiers). Both these sources confirmed the obvious: Soviet frontline forces were disciplined and serious about their business. It was the second and third line troops, which didn't do the fighting and dying, which behaved like a bunch of barbarians.

Considering most soviet soldiers invading participated in such rapes, anything celebrating their victory is celebrating their rapes, I think.
As for the second paragraph, I've read it in news article, I think, which was taken from a book.

Considering the Russian troops had a good number of female soldiers, I find that somewhat hard to imagine.

... no, i'm refuting your claim that the killing rate of the Holocaust was higher than the Purge'sAnd how did you manage that, may I ask? By quoting statistics on the holocaust that somehow prove what I posted earlier wrong? Did you notice that they were the same?

I cant believe that some people are arguing in favour of monuments celebrating the biggest mass rape of history (soviet soldiers raping german women) and unneccessary loss of millions of innocent lives (after the war is over, when the soviets forced east germans to migrate, much like the armenian genocide).As a descendant of one of those forced to migrate, no.

The thing is, that i'm pretty sure the statues honour the 20 million Soviet men and women who died defeating Nazi Germany, not the however many million it was who raped and pilliaged.

Surprisingly, the monuments are collectively where the most amount of men fell. There are German cemetaries in France, and British, because thats where they died. Many will never be recognised as dead. Whats wrong with celebrating their service to Europe.

And I suppose you have some proof for that then?

I must admit that the only evidence I have to the contrary is various Guido Knopp documentaries as well as my grandmother (whose sister was raped by Soviet soldiers). Both these sources confirmed the obvious: Soviet frontline forces were disciplined and serious about their business. It was the second and third line troops, which didn't do the fighting and dying, which behaved like a bunch of barbarians.

The links are in the OP of the thread I made about Genocide Against Germans.

Considering the Russian troops had a good number of female soldiers, I find that somewhat hard to imagine.

Actually one Soviet female military observer herself was disgusted by the actions of her army. Her diaries were published in the book I've mentioned.

The links are in the OP of the thread I made about Genocide Against Germans.
I'm not going to use the useless search function here at random. If you could either give me the link, or tell me the title of the thread so I can search it, that would be good.

Actually one Soviet female military observer herself was disgusted by the actions of her army. Her diaries were published in the book I've mentioned.Ny Nordland, I presume...

The thing is, that i'm pretty sure the statues honour the 20 million Soviet men and women who died defeating Nazi Germany, not the however many million it was who raped and pilliaged.

Surprisingly, the monuments are collectively where the most amount of men fell. There are German cemetaries in France, and British, because thats where they died. Many will never be recognised as dead. Whats wrong with celebrating their service to Europe.

Maybe Americans should have erected a monument in Hiroshima, honouring the man who pushed the button of the bomb, in regards of his achivements of defeating the evil Japaneese regime.

Actually one Soviet female military observer herself was disgusted by the actions of her army. Her diaries were published in the book I've mentioned.

My grandmother (Austrian) spent several weeks in hiding when Russian troops occupied her village. Her brother, who was with the German army in Russia, had told her to hide "because if they behave the same way as we did, not many of you womanfolk will survive it".

It happened on both sides. Rape will always be a common occurence in war.

Ny Nordland, I presume...

Read my sig... :rolleyes:

Read my sig... :rolleyes:I have them turned off :rolleyes:

My grandmother (Austrian) spent several weeks in hiding when Russian troops occupied her village. Her brother, who was with the German army in Russia, had told her to hide "because if they behave the same way as we did, not many of you womanfolk will survive it".

It happened on both sides. Rape will always be a common occurence in war.

Why the hell are you still trying to find SOME justification to Soviet actions, instead of simply admitting they were wrong?? And your "justifications" themselves are false. Nazis did treat East Europeans badly but they didnt mass rape them, actually sexual relationship with "unter-menschen" slavs were strongly discouraged.

Why the hell are you still trying to find SOME justification to Soviet actions, instead of simply admitting they were wrong?? And your "justifications" themselves are false. Nazis did treat East Europeans badly but they didnt mass rape them, actually sexual relationship with "unter-menschen" slavs were strongly discouraged.Which was why they killed and starved them instead. And why comments such as "Hope that they don't do one hundredth to you as we did to them" were so common from soldiers returning to their families from the eastern front.

...sexual relationship with "unter-menschen" slavs were strongly discouraged.
Tell that to a bunch of drunk, horny "soldiers" who knew they'd never get punished.

Is another :rolleyes: too much?

Why the hell are you still trying to find SOME justification to Soviet actions, instead of simply admitting they were wrong?? And your "justifications" themselves are false. Nazis did treat East Europeans badly but they didnt mass rape them, actually sexual relationship with "unter-menschen" slavs were strongly discouraged.

I'm not trying to justify them. I just don't see the point in pointing the finger at any of the participants of that war apart from those who started it in the first place.

And sexual relationships were in fact encouraged, provided the woman was blond and blue-eyed. If SS men produced offspring with one of the "natives", Himmler's Lebensborn was all to happy to take care of the kid.

Tell that to a bunch of drunk, horny "soldiers" who knew they'd never get punished.

Is another :rolleyes: too much?

Are you suggesting German rapes were on par with Soviet rapes? 2 million germans were raped. How many russians were raped by drunk soldiers?

Are you suggesting German rapes were on par with Soviet rapes? 2 million germans were raped. How many russians were raped by drunk soldiers?Sources?

I'm not trying to justify them. I just don't see the point in pointing the finger at any of the participants of that war apart from those who started it in the first place.

And sexual relationships were in fact encouraged, provided the woman was blond and blue-eyed. If SS men produced offspring with one of the "natives", Himmler's Lebensborn was all to happy to take care of the kid.

I think in Norway alone, there were more Lebensborn facilities than in all of Eastern Europe. Sexual relationships were mostly discouraged and you can google it if you are going to continue that claim.
And also you are making straw man argument. Noone is pointing the finger only at Soviets.

Are you suggesting German rapes were on par with Soviet rapes? 2 million germans were raped. How many russians were raped by drunk soldiers?

So the Germans killed more than they raped. I'm sure the vicitms could appreciate that.

Sources?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=486547

I think in Norway alone, there were more Lebensborn facilities than in all of Eastern Europe. Sexual relationships were mostly discouraged and you can google it if you are going to continue that claim.
And also you are making straw man argument. Noone is pointing the finger only at Soviets.

If you take a look at the original post, you'll find that finger pointing straight at the sovjets there.

So the Germans killed more than they raped. I'm sure the vicitms could appreciate that.

Straw Men. This isnt an who's more evil contest. This is about monuments celebrating rapes and killings...

If you take a look at the original post, you'll find that finger pointing straight at the sovjets there.

Amazing how we see things so differently...

Are you suggesting German rapes were on par with Soviet rapes? 2 million germans were raped. How many russians were raped by drunk soldiers?
Well, if we say that 50% of dead Soviet civilians were women (5.75 million), and we say that 75% of those were in the right sort of age (4.31 million), and we say that only half of those women were raped before they were killed, we still have more rapes committed by the Germans than by the Russians.

If you now add the likely millions of women who were raped but not killed, and then those who were forced to work as prostitutes for months and years on end, I don't think it's much of a contest.

None of this makes what many Soviet soldiers did any more acceptable. But you people need to quit using that as an excuse to discount the evil that the Nazis, their ideology and their servants were.

We have momorials to confederate soldiers who every liberal in this country will tell you (wrongly) were all racists. I have nothing against a memorial for the brave men who were just following orders.

Nope. Liberal here. They weren't all racists. (Or in any case, they weren't all any more racist than their Union counterparts)

Incidentally, can we just accept that this guy (not you Free Shepmagans, the OP) is a troll and starve him to death?

Sources?

I, too, would like to see this. I've read around the subject, and books such as Berlin: The Downfall by Antony Beevor, The Last Battle by Cornelius Ryan, and Armageddon by Max Hastings, do not make such generalisations and sweeping claims.

In all three books, it is acknowledged that Soviet Front-line troops were well-behaved and quite corteous during the fighting. It was only when the second-wave troops, such as the recently-released POWs, came into Berlin and the other areas, that the looting and raping became commonplace. Thus, it cannot be accurately said that all or the majority of Soviet troops were mass rapists.

Even Soviet Generals like Koniev and Zukhov, who acknowledged that their troops raped more than the common in such situations and did much to excuse it, did not state that all their troops commited such actions.

Well, if we say that 50% of dead Soviet civilians were women (5.75 million), and we say that 75% of those were in the right sort of age (4.31 million), and we say that only half of those women were raped before they were killed, we still have more rapes committed by the Germans than by the Russians.

If you now add the likely millions of women who were raped but not killed, and then those who were forced to work as prostitutes for months and years on end, I don't think it's much of a contest.

Pure speculation.


None of this makes what many Soviet soldiers did any more acceptable. But you people need to quit using that as an excuse to discount the evil that the Nazis, their ideology and their servants were.

Oh removing those monuments is an excuse to discount the evil of Nazi ideology?

Straw Men. This isnt an who's more evil contest. This is about monuments celebrating rapes and killings...

Ah, but they're not. They're celebrating the brave men and women who fought to liberate Berlin from the Nazis. I'd love to see one monument that specifically commemorates the rapes that were commited. Then, you might have a point.

Ah, but they're not. They're celebrating the brave men and women who fought to liberate Berlin from the Nazis. I'd love to see one monument that specifically commemorates the rapes that were commited. Then, you might have a point.

Why do people keep insisting that the Allies liberated Germany? At most, you liberated Southern Baden and a couple of other areas that were anti-Nazi.

Amazing how we see things so differently...

Nobodies pointing a finger at the Soviets, eh?

All Soviet troops were rapists. They celebrate Soviet troops.

Ok, so, would you mind if I build a statue in New York dedicated to "the brave islamic warriors who defend themselved by killing 3000 American fascist pigs"? I think you would.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11388208&postcount=10

No Soviet war memorials should have a place in any country. The Soviets were barbaric savages and arch-criminals on par with National Socialists.


Granted, that ones says on par with the Nazis.

Or ooh, how about this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11388508&postcount=47) little gem?


Yeah, but most of those countries didn't spend their ENTIRE EXISTENCE as fucking savage totalarianists.


In he also said, in response to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11388515&postcount=51)...

I would like to note that when I said "Soviets" I meant the Soviet military, not the Soviet people.


I didn't. Fucking reds.


Also sourced. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11388528&postcount=57)

Oh removing those monuments is an excuse to discount the evil of Nazi ideology?Removing those monuments is first and foremost the prerogative of Germans and more specifically, Berliners. You are neither, to my knowledge, and are therefore in no place to be asking for such a thing to happen.

Why do people keep insisting that the Allies liberated Germany? At most, you liberated Southern Baden and a couple of other areas that were anti-Nazi.Ooh... Let me guess why southern Baden must have been so anti-Nazi all of a sudden...

Removing those monuments is first and foremost the prerogative of Germans and more specifically, Berliners. You are neither, to my knowledge, and are therefore in no place to be asking for such a thing to happen.

Yes. And my original question was to Germans about how could they argue in favour of those monuments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_War_Memorial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_War_Memorial_%28Tiergarten%29

Considering the crimes of the Soviets against the German people and other Europeans, should those statues remain in Germany? Especially considering what they say. It would be akin to having statues of Union soldiers in Texas, saying "Dedicated to the brave Northern troops who died fighting the Southern scum."

Uh...its to celebrate the Soviet liberation of the Nazis...I'm pretty sure the Germans even have a day (picked on their own, not by the Russians)..to celebrate this.

Anyway, the Germans left their mark on the Russians...I beleive that mark was the generation of teens and men that were totally wipped out, thus leaving Russia with a hole in its population.


(I'm only defending the Soviets in this post....not overall..I dont like the Soviets)

Nobodies pointing a finger at the Soviets, eh?

I do because nobody else does. Like I said before, history has recorded the worst Soviet crimes as having been "looking scary" and "talking nasty."

Ooh... Let me guess why southern Baden must have been so anti-Nazi all of a sudden...

They were. They were historical a strong pocket of anti-Nazi resistance. They even tried to separate after WWII and join Switzerland, but neither the Swiss nor the Allies allowed it.

I do because nobody else does. Like I said before, history has recorded the worst Soviet crimes as having been "looking scary" and "talking nasty."

Mmm hmm. Are you a professional historian?

I do because nobody else does. Like I said before, history has recorded the worst Soviet crimes as having been "looking scary" and "talking nasty."
Uh...I dont know what your talking about...American "fought" the Russians for about half a century...and Ronald Reagan even came out calling it an "Evil Empire" that must be stopped. Also, go to East Germany...or Estonia (the only post-communist places I've been) or go to anywhere in Eastern Europe and they will tell you all about the atrocities the Russians instilled....if that is what you want to hear.

Uh...I dont know what your talking about...American "fought" the Russians for about half a century...and Ronald Reagan even came out calling it an "Evil Empire" that must be stopped. Also, go to East Germany...or Estonia (the only post-communist places I've been) or go to anywhere in Eastern Europe and they will tell you all about the atrocities the Russians instilled....if that is what you want to hear.

Yeah, and ask the average Westerner WHY they fought the Russians. The best they will usually come up with is "Because they're commies."

Yeah, and ask the average Westerner WHY they fought the Russians. The best they will usually come up with is "Because they're commies."
So....?

What exactly do YOU want the average person to say?

Yes. And my original question was to Germans about how could they argue in favour of those monuments.Easily. They focus on the defeat of Nazi Germany, and not on the rapes included in the package. What's more, one of the most famous ones is actually in West Berlin, and if it wasn't a problem when the Soviets were still our enemies, it isn't really a problem today.

So....?

What exactly do YOU want the average person to say?

I want them to know exactly what crimes the Soviets committed during their time. They already know what the Nazis did.

Ooh... Let me guess why southern Baden must have been so anti-Nazi all of a sudden...
Where is Baden? A state in the South-West?

They were. They were historical a strong pocket of anti-Nazi resistance. They even tried to separate after WWII and join Switzerland, but neither the Swiss nor the Allies allowed it.So was the Munich elite, notably the former Bavarian royal family. There were pockets of German resistance everywhere and not just Southern Baden. Sadly, they all failed to prevent or end Nazi rule.

I want them to know exactly what crimes the Soviets committed during their time. They already know what the Nazis did.
The know that because the Nazis were our enemies during the War...and the Soviets werent..thats just how it played out. From my own beleifs and the beleifs of others I have met....common Americans tend to not like Russians or Russia...but they dont have anything against Germany (unless they are Jewish then sometimes it can be the other way around because alot of Jews get very toolish when it comes to this).

Yeah, and ask the average Westerner WHY they fought the Russians. The best they will usually come up with is "Because they're commies."

Okay, we 'fought' the Russians because

A) Yes, they were communists. The Cold War was over the two conflicting types of economy, capitalist and communist. Don't pretend otherwise.

B) (and by B I mean secondarily) we fought them because they had an insane totalitarian dictator in charge.

Where is Baden? A state in the South-West?

Yep.

Where is Baden? A state in the South-West?Part of Baden-Württemberg, notably where K-P's mother comes from, if I am not much mistaken.

A) Yes, they were communists. The Cold War was over the two conflicting types of economy, capitalist and communist. Don't pretend otherwise.

Not really. It was a power struggle. The economics were just a sort of... front. It was a battle between two different world orders, two different contenders for the throne as the most powerful nation on Earth. If Hitler had won, the Cold War would have been between the US and the Nazis, despite them both being capitalist.

Okay, we 'fought' the Russians because

A) Yes, they were communists. The Cold War was over the two conflicting types of economy, capitalist and communist. Don't pretend otherwise.

B) (and by B I mean secondarily) we fought them because they had an insane totalitarian dictator in charge.
Right...basically for whos style of lifestyle and soceity would be the accepted norm in the world. They wanted their...we wanted ours....we won.

Part of Baden-Württemberg, notably where K-P's mother comes from, if I am not much mistaken.
Ohhhh I thought his family was Berliner and this thing affected him personally!:p

Why do people keep insisting that the Allies liberated Germany? At most, you liberated Southern Baden and a couple of other areas that were anti-Nazi.

Odd. It's almost like you ignored my whole post. I meant the monuments celebrate the Soviet liberation of Germany from the Nazi regime, although I'm quite sure you know what I meant. Nowhere do these monuments mention mass rapes.

Pure speculation.
And what do you have? "Estimates".

The point is that none of my assumptions are in any way unreasonable, and although I can't claim that I know the exact number, the sheer scale of the war in the east makes it likely that more Russian women were raped than German women.

Oh removing those monuments is an excuse to discount the evil of Nazi ideology?
I think it's been established multiple times now that the monuments are not to rapists, and you have failed utterly at even trying to prove that the fighting troops to whom the monuments are devoted were indeed rapists.

Not really. It was a power struggle. The economics were just a sort of... front. It was a battle between two different world orders, two different contenders for the throne as the most powerful nation on Earth. If Hitler had won, the Cold War would have been between the US and the Nazis, despite them both being capitalist.

You know, I'm not one hundred percent positive, but I'm pretty sure of two things.

First, what with America getting involved in the war, a victorious Germany would= a defeated America.

Second, isn't there a difference between capitalism and fascism?

Yep.
Dude, look...we both are of German background (your from Baden mine from Berlin)...and we both like your backgrounds....So to me it seems stupid that you bitch and complain about the Soviet Liberation of Nazi Germany...it was a GOOD thing...not what the soldiers did, but that they (along with us on the Western front and in Afrika) brought the Nazi War Machine to its knees. Ze Germans did their bad shit..the Russians may have done worse shit...whatever, the fact is that in the end...Germany was freed from its Nazi dictatorship...and if you have any respect or love for the word Germany, or the German people...you would be happy for that.

Ohhhh I thought his family was Berliner and this thing affected him personally!:pIf so, then they would have been affecting him since long before he was born.

If so, then they would have been affecting him since long before he was born.
Yes I know...but I was just trying to put some reason to why he has a problem with the liberation of Nazi Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_War_Memorial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_War_Memorial_%28Tiergarten%29

Considering the crimes of the Soviets against the German people and other Europeans, should those statues remain in Germany? Especially considering what they say. It would be akin to having statues of Union soldiers in Texas, saying "Dedicated to the brave Northern troops who died fighting the Southern scum."

The honorable thing to do is remove the labels from the people and just say "dedicated to people who died".

You know, I'm not one hundred percent positive, but I'm pretty sure of two things.

First, what with America getting involved in the war, a victorious Germany would= a defeated America.

Second, isn't there a difference between capitalism and fascism?

America would not be defeated, at the same level as, say, France or the UK. They would simply be forced to go back home. They wouldn't be occupied or conquered.

And AFAIK, capitalism and fascism aren't mutually exclusive. One's a system of economics, the other's a system of government. You can be both.

Yes I know...but I was just trying to put some reason to why he has a problem with the liberation of Nazi Germany."Reason has nothing to do with it." :p

Low self esteem coupled with a general "I don't belong" feeling. It makes him try to find something he can be proud of, his Ukranian and German heritage, and now he emphasis the parts that make them look like victims, thus giving him claim to work on his own victim complex. At least that would be my preliminary and unprofessional diagnosis.

The honorable thing to do is remove the labels from the people and just say "dedicated to people who died".

And take off the gun toting Ivan on top.

And take off the gun toting Ivan on top.

Seriously, just... stop with the Russian insulting. Please. In any case, obviously making it a non country specific monument would entail not having any specific country be represented.

So, useless and redunant.

Seriously, just... stop talking. Please.

What, that's what it is. I'm just calling 'em like I sees 'em.

"Reason has nothing to do with it." :p

Low self esteem coupled with a general "I don't belong" feeling. It makes him try to find something he can be proud of, his Ukranian and German heritage, and now he emphasis the parts that make them look like victims, thus giving him claim to work on his own victim complex. At least that would be my preliminary and unprofessional diagnosis.
Lol..Ukranian....Dont know what hes proud of...his "beloved Nazis" would have destoryed his Ukranian family...them being slavic sub-human communists and all.:p (and probably Jewish;)

*cough* *cough* The total number of people killed by American funded dictators is a tiny fraction of the total number of people killed by the Soviets and their satellite scum.

30000 just in my own country, I dont regard that as tiny...

And getting on topic, no, those statues SHOULD NOT be removed.

YES, the soviets did bad things at Germany, but the US did bad stuff too, Veitnam anyone?

England killed Dutch Settlers and Zulus, France had the foreing legion, Japan conducted experiments with Chinese people.

NO ONE is completely innocent here.

And Im not saying the soviets were good, just that their regime sucked.

Lol..Ukranian....Dont know what hes proud of...his "beloved Nazis" would have destoryed his Ukranian family...them being slavic sub-human communists and all.:p (and probably Jewish;)

A lot of Ukrainians loved the Nazis. After the Holodomor, it really couldn't have gotten much worse.

30000 just in my own country, I dont regard that as tiny...

And getting on topic, no, those statues SHOULD NOT be removed.

YES, the soviets did bad things at Germany, but the US did bad stuff too, Veitnam anyone?

England killed Dutch Settlers and Zulus, France had the foreing legion, Japan conducted experiments with Chinese people.

NO ONE is completely innocent here.

And Im not saying the soviets were good, just that their regime sucked.

...Uh...not trying to be rude but with a nation name like that...I hardly think your an ubiased opinion.:p

A lot of Ukrainians loved the Nazis. After the Holodomor, it really couldn't have gotten much worse.
It doesnt matter....the Nazis sure as hell didnt love the Ukranians. Ukranians are a very Slavic people...who were under the thumb of the Soviet Union. Thats two marks against them according to the Nazis.

And I seriously doubt a lot of Ukrainians LOVED the Nazis...being as that the Nazis were slaughtering Soviets by the thousand.:rolleyes:

A lot of Ukrainians loved the Nazis. After the Holodomor, it really couldn't have gotten much worse.Until their illusions about creating an independent Ukranian state were dashed by Hitler, after which the anti-Soviet partisans took to the hills and fought both Nazis and Soviets.

And what do you have? "Estimates".

The point is that none of my assumptions are in any way unreasonable, and although I can't claim that I know the exact number, the sheer scale of the war in the east makes it likely that more Russian women were raped than German women.


Estimates by historians who had made research on this subject. What are your qualifications?


I think it's been established multiple times now that the monuments are not to rapists, and you have failed utterly at even trying to prove that the fighting troops to whom the monuments are devoted were indeed rapists.

Monuments are to soviet soldiers. Most of the invading soviet soldiers were rapist.


Millions of women victims raped by Russian soldiers during the last months of World War II. Anthony Beevor's book "Berlin -- The Downfall 1945" documents rape by Russian soldiers. "Beevor's conclusions are that in response to the vast scale of casualties inflicted on them by the Germans the Soviets responded in kind, and that included rape on a vast scale. It started as soon as the Red Army entered East Prussia and Silesia in 1944, and in many towns and villages every female aged from 10 to 80 was raped." The author "was 'shaken to the core' to discover that even their own Russian and Polish women and girls liberated from German concentration camps were also violated." He estimates that "a 'high proportion' of at least 15 million women who lived in the Soviet zone or were expelled from Germany's eastern provinces were raped." Until recent years, East German women from the World War II era referred to the Red Army war memorial in Berlin as "the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist."



Calls to avenge the Motherland, violated by the Wehrmacht's invasion, had given the idea that almost any cruelty would be allowed. Even many young women soldiers and medical staff in the Red Army did not appear to disapprove. "Our soldiers' behaviour towards Germans, particularly German women, is absolutely correct!" said a 21-year-old from Agranenko's reconnaissance detachment. A number seemed to find it amusing. Several German women recorded how Soviet servicewomen watched and laughed when they were raped. But some women were deeply shaken by what they witnessed in Germany. Natalya Gesse, a close friend of the scientist Andrei Sakharov, had observed the Red Army in action in 1945 as a Soviet war correspondent. "The Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty," she recounted later. "It was an army of rapists."


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=486547

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_War_Memorial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_War_Memorial_%28Tiergarten%29

Considering the crimes of the Soviets against the German people and other Europeans, should those statues remain in Germany? Especially considering what they say. It would be akin to having statues of Union soldiers in Texas, saying "Dedicated to the brave Northern troops who died fighting the Southern scum."

It's history. I don't see any point in tearing them down. What they stand for may have changed, but they are still a reminder.

Seriously, just... stop with the Russian insulting. Please. In any case, obviously making it a non country specific monument would entail not having any specific country be represented.

So, useless and redunant.

But the Russians are obviously all ZOMGevil Commies and are all guilty of mass-rape! Fuck bias and ignore the evidence, just paint them all with a massive brush! Hell, they're just Communist scum, right? I mean, it couldn't be that the front-line troops were usually decent, fighting men and those who committed the majority of the rapes were POWs and those in the second wave?


Nooooo, because that might mean they aren't all guilty!

Until their illusions about creating an independent Ukranian state were dashed by Hitler, after which the anti-Soviet partisans took to the hills and fought both Nazis and Soviets.

Says a lot about the Russians when their own "people" don't support them. So much for pan-Slavicism.

Says a lot about the Russians when their own "people" don't support them. So much for pan-Slavicism.
Uh, werent you just showing us how Baden was trying to break off from Nazi Germany? Sas alot about the Nazis when their own people dont support them. So much for the Nazi Reich.

Says a lot about the Russians when their own "people" don't support them. So much for pan-Slavicism.

You know, I don't think anyone here is saying

ZOMG U=TEH SUXORS! 50V1375= TEH L33T ROFLCAKES!

However, there is a difference between ^ and 'Not every Soviet Soldier was a rapist'

It doesnt matter....the Nazis sure as hell didnt love the Ukranians. Ukranians are a very Slavic people...who were under the thumb of the Soviet Union. Thats two marks against them according to the Nazis.

And I seriously doubt a lot of Ukrainians LOVED the Nazis...being as that the Nazis were slaughtering Soviets by the thousand.:rolleyes:

Apparently, the most fierce, vicious and brutal SS troops were Ukrainian. They must have been on at least average terms with the Nazis.

Uh, werent you just showing us how Baden was trying to break off from Nazi Germany? Sas alot about the Nazis when their own people dont support them. So much for the Nazi Reich.

Yeah, so much for the Nazis.

See, you assume that I'm pro-Nazi.

Monuments are to soviet soldiers. Most of the invading soviet soldiers were rapist. Your expert makes no mention of how many Russians did the raping, and the other is a single war correspondent. Very strong argument there...

Apparently, the most fierce, vicious and brutal SS troops were Ukrainian. They must have been on at least average terms with the Nazis.
Uh..who says? I thought the SS had to be German..or atleast Germanic..not slavic "sub-humans".

Says a lot about the Russians when their own "people" don't support them. So much for pan-Slavicism.A notion more akin to the Czars than the Soviets. They had their "world revolution" to drive the spread of their empire.

Seriously, just... stop with the Russian insulting. Please. In any case, obviously making it a non country specific monument would entail not having any specific country be represented.

So, useless and redunant.

What Russian insulting? There is a crazy Ivan with a gun on top of those statues.

Yeah, so much for the Nazis.

See, you assume that I'm pro-Nazi.
And you assume that because we are happy the Germany was freed of the Nazis....we are pro Russian.:rolleyes:

Uh..who says? I thought the SS had to be German..or atleast Germanic..not slavic "sub-humans".

Nope. There were many foreign SS units. French, Dutch, Latvian, Croatian, Ukrainian, etc.

Yeah, so much for the Nazis.

See, you assume that I'm pro-Nazi.Considering the comments and notions you entertain, I'm going to ask you why you assume that you aren't?

Uh..who says? I thought the SS had to be German..or atleast Germanic..not slavic "sub-humans".In the end of the war when Germanic, blond, blue-eyed, tall people were running out, they got less picky.

Considering the comments and notions you entertain, I'm going to ask you why you assume that you aren't?

I'm generally anti-Nazi. I'm only pro-Nazi when the Soviets enter the picture. Hell, if we were at war with the Soviets, I'd ally with Hitler, Chiang Kai-shek, Idi Amin, Judas Iscariot and Satan, if it meant getting the job done.

In the end of the war when Germanic, blond, blue-eyed, tall people were running out, they got less picky.

Hitler was an idiot. You get blondes in the north, and fanatics in the south. You can't have both. That's why he wasn't blonde.

...Uh...not trying to be rude but with a nation name like that...I hardly think your an ubiased opinion.:p

You have a point, but as much as I think Communism would work, I promote a Socially Minded-Free Market type, which allows for freedom while still retaining equality. But we are not talking about this.

Now, seriously, who is this GREATER ALEMMANIA dude?

What is he, insane?

we lost vietnam because the military couldn't do what it needed to do (cambodia and laos) because the stoned hippies back home wouldn't allow it. Instead of thanking the soldiers for fighting for America they spit on them and called them baby killers. Kind of like what is happening now in Iraq, only a bit more veiled. The dems in office now were the same ones dropping acid in the 70's they just wear a shirt and tie now instead of tye dye

Yeah, because NAPALM'ing entire villages is not killing innocent people.

I wonder how would you feel if I bombed your home town to rubble, then burned everything and then shot everyone.

Oh, yes, you'd be angry, and dead, but angry.

In the end of the war when Germanic, blond, blue-eyed, tall people were running out, they got less picky.

Ah, I see..so they set their standards down a whole lot...and eventually they got down to those....Ukranians....who they considered "sub-human untermenschen"(trying to make K-P understand that the Nazis didnt like the Ukrainians)

Hitler was an idiot. You get blondes in the north, and fanatics in the south. You can't have both. That's why he wasn't blonde.

Uh..actually there are tons of blondes in the "South" if by South you mean Central Europe. For instance...Switzerland, Austria and Northern Italy have tons of blonde "Aryan" people.

And you're using Stalin as a representative of the Left, and Hitler for the Right.

Which suits me nicely, because it illustrates that going down either way is no good.
No, my problem is the way that the generally Left-wing media continually smears the Right by constantly parroting on about far-Right ideologies like Nazism, while the image of the Left remains - undeservedly - untainted.
I'm not using Stalin or Hitler to represent anything except the point I just went over. They are the figures that mark the extremes of both Wings, yet all attention is focused on Hitler - the figure of the far-Right.
Nazism as an ideology has the continuing violence against others at its very core. And unlike communism, this violence is not caused by the actions of the "bad guys", but by their very existence. Jews, Blacks and other undesirables have no way of escaping punishment.
Communism also had violence at its core in form of the armed revolution. However, the revolution is primarily directed at perceived oppressors. Once the oppression is over, the violence no longer has a theoretical foundation. Also, rich people can escape the violence through their actions (ie joining the communist movement, more about that next). Violence has in practice continued, but must be blamed on the individual dictators in question, since it no longer has a basis in the theory.
While Nazism is based on racial and political superiority, Communism is based on class and political superiority:
You've already explained Nazism, but your view on communism is slightly biased. Communism is based on the idea that Right-Wingers are rich people are greedy bullies. Stalin's and Mao's Purges were designed to eliminate anyone with slightly uncommunist views. Hence, your opinion that Nazism attacks people for what they are, and communism for what people have become is absurd. People are what they are: Left-wing, Right-wing, black, white, jewish; there is no 'less important' group to persecute.
Nazism is an excluding, racist ideology. At its very core is the idea of "us against them". Jews, Blacks and the like can't become Nazis.
Communism is an all-inclusive, internationalist ideology. Even though Stalin attempted the "Socialism in one country", the goal was ultimately still a world without borders. Anyone, regardless of race or birth, can be a communist.
I don't care much for your Stalin-sympathy.
If I re-write what you've said in a less biased way - Stalin believed that anyone who wasn't a communist should be punished. He was getting rid of his 'enemies', just as Hitler was. The roots of those 'enemies' is irrelevant (whether born that way, or brought-up that way) and you're distorting the argument by focusing on it, because they both believed in eliminating them no matter what. If people were, say, 'born' Right-wing, Stalin would have still put them in Gulags.
As far as the practice is concerned, I think we very much have to distinguish between things like the Holocaust, the Purges and the Great Leap.
The Holocaust was an intentional effort to kill Jews and other undesirables, industrially, in huge numbers, without leaving any alive.
The Purges were the deeds of an insane man, not an ideology. He chose lists of names at random and let them be worked to death or shot. It's quite aside from the politics of it all.
What absolutely biased crap.
Hitler = not like Jews and other 'sub-human' races.
Stalin = not like non-communists
There is no distinction, except that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did (more than triple). Both were mad megalomaniacs. The majority of the Nazi-believing population of Germany was shocked at the treatment of Jews etc in the camps.
And before anyone suspects things about my motives, I'm a libertarian, perhaps going as far as being an objectivist at times.
Don't talk out your ass. What I just read was some of the most biased, pro-communist crap I have ever seen. 'Objectivist'? Calm yourself, dear. You're living in an imaginary world.

Your expert makes no mention of how many Russians did the raping, and the other is a single war correspondent. Very strong argument there...

You suggest millions of women were raped by a minority within the army? Why didnt the majority control it then? We arent talking about isolated incidents here. All women from 8 to 80 was a clear statement.
Meanwhile I'm still appalled at the germans here who still support these monuments dedicated to the soldiers who did these:

http://www.meaus.com/Expulsion_of_Germans.html

I suggest you read this.

You suggest millions of women were raped by a minority within the army? Why didnt the majority control it then? We arent talking about isolated incidents here. All women from 8 to 80 was a clear statement.
Meanwhile I'm still appalled at the germans here who still support these monuments dedicated to the soldiers who did these:

http://www.meaus.com/Expulsion_of_Germans.html

I suggest you read this.You're telling me things I already know. And if you don't know why there was such widespread tolerance of rape and why individuals such as Solzhenitsyn who tried to stop it were so rare, I suggest you do some reading yourself ;)

We did however print some kick ass t-shirts...

EDIT: Here Here we go. http://www.campingsurvival.com/madinaminjap.html

Yeah, committing war crimes against the Japanese and getting away with it sure does sure does rock...

Yeah, committing war crimes against the Japanese and getting away with it sure does sure does rock...
War crimes? Shut up, hippy.

Don't talk out your ass. What I just read was some of the most biased, pro-communist crap I have ever seen. 'Objectivist'? Calm yourself, dear. You're living in an imaginary world.

Pro-communist? A post that is stating that the only difference between the right-wing regime example and the left-wing example was the ideology which led to the selection of their victims and the methods used to eliminate said victims?

War crimes? Shut up, hippy.

Neccessary or not, the use of the atomic bombs can still be considered a war-crime. Not on par with the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March, but still ranking quite high.

Pro-communist? A post that is stating that the only difference between the right-wing regime example and the left-wing example was the ideology which led to the selection of their victims and the methods used to eliminate said victims?
<Sigh> Trying to get through to you and your kind is like pulling teeth. Are you deliberately trying to be ignorant and annoying, or are you just a bit thick?

<Sigh> Trying to get through to you and your kind is like pulling teeth. Are you deliberately trying to be ignorant and annoying, or are you just a bit thick?

Funny, you haven't really put up any argument at all yet and already resort to personal insults.
Can you please either state how a post that's equalling the left wing communist regim under Stalin to Hitler's right wing regime can in any way be considered pro-communist, or are you just going to go on make yourself look dilettantish?

Neccessary or not, the use of the atomic bombs can still be considered a war-crime. Not on par with the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March, but still ranking quite high.
Look, hippy, if Japan was not nuked, the US would have to have invaded Japan. The invasion was already planned when Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened, and was to dwarf D-Day. Had this plan followed-through, millions would have died in the fighting, compared to the couple of hundred thousand killed by the A-bombs.
I've heard stories from my Grandpa's generation about what the Japanese did to our soldiers: filled their stomachs with dry rice, which expanded and burst their stomachs open, used alive men for bayonet practice, etc.
Would you subject hundreds of thousands more of your country's men to that fate, when you could end it with 2 bombs?
There's a reason that no one worth their salt has declared the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 'war crimes'.

Greater Allmenia..... You do not and have never actually LIVED in Germany, you do not hold German citizenship, stop getting overly emotional and stop whining about your German heritage. Leave if up to THE REAL GERMANS to decide if they want to keep the statue or not. Also, of course there are no war memorials for German Troops in Russia, THEY LOST DUMBASS, if they had won, there probably would have been. All countries troops in WW2 raped some women. Not just Russia, quite a few Nazis commited war crimes also....cough holocouast.... cough...[/SIZE]

Let me set this clear, Stalin DOES NOT, in any way, represent the social and economic point of view known as COMMUNISM.

Stalin was a DICTATOR which used somebody else's ideas to stay in power and keep the people from revolting.

a TRUE COMMUNIST will never see Stalin, Mao, Modern Day China, or the Soviet Union as TRUE COMMUNISTS.

(Specially China IMO, its just a Capitalist Dictatorship disguised as a Communist Country).

Funny, you haven't really put up any argument at all yet and already resort to personal insults.
Can you please either state how a post that's equalling the left wing communist regim under Stalin to Hitler's right wing regime can in any way be considered pro-communist, or are you just going to go on make yourself look dilettantish?
Personal insults? What are you prattling on about now?

Read this single extract from the post in question, and honestly say that this post is neutral:
Communism has for most people at its heart a message of compassion and of helping people (you can argue about whether it really does, but ask most commies and they'll probably talk about that).
My goodness, talking to you is boring my ass off.

Let me set this clear, Stalin DOES NOT, in any way, represent the social and economic point of view known as COMMUNISM.

Stalin was a DICTATOR which used somebody else's ideas to stay in power and keep the people from revolting.

a TRUE COMMUNIST will never see Stalin, Mao, Modern Day China, or the Soviet Union as TRUE COMMUNISTS.
That is ridiculous. Are you knowlingly lying though your teeth, or just deluded? You're denying those murderous stains on your ideology, not because you disagree with them, but because they show everyone that your ideology is the fascist, murderous heap that it so desperately claims it isn't.

(Specially China IMO, its just a Capitalist Dictatorship disguised as a Communist Country).
Capitalist, yes, which is why it's not a cess-pit like every other communist country becomes. They realised communism is a pile of shit, so they unofficially ditched it.

Personal insults? What are you prattling on about now?

Read this single extract from the post in question, and honestly say that this post is neutral:

My goodness, talking to you is boring my ass off.

He was talking about communism as written down by Karl Marx, not as practiced by Stalin and Lenin. It's a nice little theory, very closely related to Christian prophecies and ideas, but simply not practicable in its idealism. An utopia, one could call it.

We have momorials to confederate soldiers who every liberal in this country will tell you (wrongly) were all racists. I have nothing against a memorial for the brave men who were just following orders.

The US Civil War was about State's Rights vs a large and powerful Federal Government, not about slavery. I think you probabably know that though based on how you phrased your example. In some respects (slavery aside; I abhor the idea) the wrong side won.

The US Civil War was about State's Rights vs a large and powerful Federal Government, not about slavery. I think you probabably know that though based on how you phrased your example. In some respects (slavery aside; I abhor the idea) the wrong side won.

No it was about slavery as it would have all but destroyed their economic base. Never mind the fact one of the complaints was about the admission of slave states vs non-slave states.

Look, hippy,

Hippy?

They disappeared 25 years ago.

Skinny is not old enough to be one.

Hippy?

They disappeared 25 years ago.

Skinny is not old enough to be one.

Yes, thanks, TBF. Actually, Fannytopia, this 'Hippy' knows all about Operation Olympic and the planned blockade and invasion of the Japanese Islands during 1946-1947. He knows what the JCOS planned and what casualty statistics they gave for such an extended operation - fairly low if European troops were used, horrendously high if Pacific veterans were used instead. He also knows about the mass slaughter that would have occured in the Japanese population had Coronet and its subsidiaries gone according to plan. I know that the use of the two bombs were the lesser of two neccessary evils. But that does not change the fact that they killed so many and should be seen as a war crime. Lesser than Nanking or Bataan, but a War Crime nonetheless. It may have saved far more lives, but that makes it no less of a crime.

EDIT: Just curious more than anything, TBF, how'd you know how old I was?

Plus, they could have dropped the bomb in a military base instead of, you know, a freaking city full of civilians!

Plus, they could have dropped the bomb in a military base instead of, you know, a freaking city full of civilians!

Meh. The Tokyo fire bombing killed more people then the two A-Bombs.

Why focus on these two?

What about Dresden?

EDIT: Just curious more than anything, TBF, how'd you know how old I was?

You are at Uni.....

No it was about slavery as it would have all but destroyed their economic base. Never mind the fact one of the complaints was about the admission of slave states vs non-slave states.

Sorry, you show a very shallow understanding of the issues leading up to it then. Slavery was the 'public' face of the cause of war. Much like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand sparked WWI, but was not the real root cause.

Tariffs were the big thing that pissed the southern states off. Slavery was just a very politically charged and hence visible issue.

You are at Uni.....

Ooohhhh yeahhhh....

Sorry, you show a very shallow understanding of the issues leading up to it then. Slavery was the 'public' face of the cause of war. Much like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand sparked WWI, but was not the real root cause.

Tariffs were the big thing that pissed the southern states off. Slavery was just a very politically charged and hence visible issue.

Shallow understanding vs Southern revisionism.

Slavery was a part of it. Even Georgia's secession document mentioned it several times.

Shallow understanding vs Southern revisionism.

Slavery was a part of it. Even Georgia's secession document mentioned it several times.

I think I said it was part of it :-)

The real underlying reason was State's Rights.

You're telling me things I already know. And if you don't know why there was such widespread tolerance of rape and why individuals such as Solzhenitsyn who tried to stop it were so rare, I suggest you do some reading yourself ;)

If you already knew about people who tried to stop it are rare, couldnt you yourself reached the conclusion that people who did the rapes and/or supported it were in the majority and hence any war monument to soviet soldiers honour this majority??

My great uncle was a WWII B-19 bombadier. In 1942 he was shot down behind enemy lines. He spent two months getting to the Russian front, and after he, two other crew-members, and a family of Jews, made it to the Soviet soldiers, he and his two friends were kept at a Russian field hospital for three weeks before they finally had an avenue to fly them back to Britain. He spent one year in the hospital, was nearly discharged under "Section 8" and came out changed. He saw both the Nazis and the Soviets commit horrendous crimes. He has told me that the real defeat of Hitler was on the Eastern Front. That soldiers on the Dneiper Line would save their last bullets for themselves, because each side was a teeming mass of blood-thirsty monsters. Both the Nazis and the Communists ignored the rules of warfare. On the Western front it was a different story. The free press could be counted upon to report all the facts, so the Nazis ensured that the Western Front was more "civilized," if such a term can be applied. The statues commemorating victory of an army of rapists over the last, tattered remains of another army of rapists should be destroyed. No war memorial that commemorates two armies of evil should stand on the grounds of the loser.

I’m not comfortable with war memorials, period. They’re often used for the wrong things, but I’m far more concerned with the fact that the Japanese still honor soldiers (dead and alive) from World War Two. They never did get the whole shame thing down that Germany does so very nicely.

No, my problem is the way that the generally Left-wing media continually smears the Right by constantly parroting on about far-Right ideologies like Nazism, while the image of the Left remains - undeservedly - untainted.
Where do you happen to live, Mr. McCarthy?

While Nazism is based on racial and political superiority, Communism is based on class and political superiority:
"Political Superiority"?
You're making shit up now. In Marxism, people do not have inherent characteristics, views or mentalities. They are all the product of the economic conditions they live in.
Which blows your whole "all rich people always get killed" theory out of the water, as well as the fact that many big-name commies throughout history were rich kids.

If people were, say, 'born' Right-wing, Stalin would have still put them in Gulags.
Except that you can't be born with a political orientation. You're brought up with it, and you can change it throughout your life.
Indeed, what about the re-education camps? Seems like pretty good support for my point, doesn't it.

Don't talk out your ass. What I just read was some of the most biased, pro-communist crap I have ever seen. 'Objectivist'? Calm yourself, dear. You're living in an imaginary world.
Oh, my. Well then, start a different thread about economics, and we'll see.

My goodness, talking to you is boring my ass off.
Then don't.

He has told me that the real defeat of Hitler was on the Eastern Front.

He is right, and the "beginning of the end" for Germany started in 1943, when the VI Army Surrendered at Stalingrad.

Stalingrad aside, yes, both armies did horrible things, no one is denying it, but according to your point of view, stuff like the "Vietnam War Memorial", etc. should be destroyed too then?

When I left for work this morning (about 5.45 EST), there were 10 pages, and it was discussing statues. My how things change...

Greater Alemannia, would you please shut the fuck up and stop giving my people and country a bad name by posting "on our behalf" while behaving like a total idiot and giving people the impression that you are German?

You're not German and cannot speak for any of us who are and live here - go pick a differnt topic to rant about other than Germany, for crying out loud!

http://www.smileyhut.com/weapons/dropcheer.gif
G.A.

Dude, that smilie pwns.

Dude, that smilie pwns.
Hehe, thanks. It's just G.A. making posts like this one which means I have to use drastic measures like that smiley. Helps me stay calm :p

He is right, and the "beginning of the end" for Germany started in 1943, when the VI Army Surrendered at Stalingrad.
I'd put it before that, in 1941/42 in Moscow, when the Germans had to retreat in the Winter.

How would capturing Stalingrad have won the war? It wouldn't have.

The Red Army put a lot of effort and soldiers, capturing the City of Stalingrad would not only give the Germans a Moral Victory, but a new base to send supplies and stuff to, plus allowing the VI to jump from Stalingrad to other, more important cities in the area, and the factories in Stalingrad would surely prove useful.

The Red Army put a lot of effort and soldiers, capturing the City of Stalingrad would not only give the Germans a Moral Victory...
Granted. But then, moral victories and lots of dead or captured Soviets were achieved earlier and later than that and never looked like changing the outcome.
The huuuge forces that encircled Stalingrad had still been there if Stalingrad had been captured quickly. They might not have won as total a victory, but they'd still have forced the 6th back into Ukraine.

...but a new base to send supplies and stuff to...
Over destroyed railway lines, partisan-infested roads as well as giant steppes that were inpassable for at least half of the year.

...plus allowing the VI to jump from Stalingrad to other, more important cities in the area...
What cities would those be though? The goal of the offensive was Baku - the 6th Army never had the fuel to get there.

...and the factories in Stalingrad would surely prove useful.
The Germans bombed the city to rubble before the battle even began. There was nothing left standing.

I know the city was bombed to its foundations, and that was, well, tactically stupid in my opinion, but, both the Red and German Armies (specially the Red Army) made a big propaganda fuss about the city, capturing it and routing the opposing army, would not only give your people a sense of victory, but probably make them put more money into the war cause, more "heart" if you like.

After the German defeat, the Russians started to think that they had a chance, German were no longer considered "invencible", the Battle at Stalingrad only helped strenghten this belief (that the Germans could be beaten), if the Germans had won, this would have proved how "GERMANY RISES ABOVE ALL!" and stuff, probably making the Russian People more "sensitive" and "Surrender'ish".

...but probably make them put more money into the war cause, more "heart" if you like.
Somehow I think neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia had much trouble securing money and popular support for the war effort.

In short, there is no military reason for why a victory in Stalingrad would have changed anything. It was all propaganda.

Thats the point, propaganda, after the Victory, the Soviets started parading around showing it to everyone and saying "See? We can beat em'!", while putting the Germans in a position of "Okay, I admit it, we were pwned!", thing is, both armies redirected much of their war effort to win at Stalingrad, so the defeated (Germany) side lost not only Morale, but tons of material, men and , well, stuff.

The USSR was awful. The Nazis were awful. The statutes themselves do not seem so bad. I kind of like the one with the Soviet soldier rescuing the little kid, espescially because this actually happened.

The USSR was awful. The Nazis were awful. The statutes themselves do not seem so bad. I kind of like the one with the Soviet soldier rescuing the little kid, espescially because this actually happened.

Whoopee. One kid. Must have been an army of good fucking Samaritans.

Whoopee. One kid. Must have been an army of good fucking Samaritans.

Well, you've yet to prove how "all Soviet soldiers are rapists."

Seems you're content to make any number of emotive, incorrect statements as long as you can later lash out with this faux-self-righteous anger and talk so unbiasedly about how you'd prefer the Nazis.

Well, you've yet to prove how "all Soviet soldiers are rapists."

Seems you're content to make any number of emotive, incorrect statements as long as you can later lash out with this faux-self-righteous anger and talk so unbiasedly about how you'd prefer the Nazis.

Most were. With that number of rapes, it had to be, unless the Soviets had an army the size of the Chinese population.

Most were. With that number of rapes, it had to be, unless the Soviets had an army the size of the Chinese population.

Doesn't prove your statement, doesn't contradict my point.

Edit: Even if we assume it to be true. The USSR army at the time was the largest in Europe. And haven't you ever heard of the concept of one man committing multiple rapes? Not that farfetched, is it.

Doesn't prove your statement, doesn't contradict my point.

Yes it does. You're saying it was a minority.

Yes it does. You're saying it was a minority.

You said it was ALL USSR SOLDIERS. You're shifting to "oh, it was just a lot of them instead" and then claiming that you've somehow proved the original statement by shifting the goal posts.

And like you haven't apologized for the nazis? "Oh, most of the German soldiers who put people into concentration camps weren't really nazis, they were just good hearted Germanic countrymen who are unfairly villainized! Waaah!"

You said it was ALL USSR SOLDIERS. You're shifting to "oh, it was just a lot of them instead" and then claiming that you've somehow proved the original statement by shifting the goal posts.

And like you haven't apologized for the nazis? "Oh, most of the German soldiers who put people into concentration camps weren't really nazis, they were just good hearted Germanic countrymen who are unfairly villainized! Waaah!"

At least I'm fucking looking at what the Soviets did, instead of making them out to be "The Friendliest Regime in the World." But hey, you fucking love Stalin.

At least I'm fucking looking at what the Soviets did, instead of making them out to be "The Friendliest Regime in the World."

Uh, right. Because I'm well-known for saying that. Oh wait, I've never said it. Or implied it. And in fact, I often refer to the USSR as a perfect example of how communism and socialism are fucked-up idealogies.

But don't let facts get in the way of yet another opportunity to exude your self-righteous idiocy.

But hey, you fucking love Stalin.

Oh gee of course, he killed some of my family and I LOVE him. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass, Nazi-Boy.

The Soviets could easily have fielded in the tens of millions of men during the war, since they had seven million dead. That's over five times the number of women raped. Hardly a majority of rapists.

Oh gee of course, he killed some of my family and I LOVE him. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass, Nazi-Boy.

Hey look, Trostia. It's your mate:

http://www.leksikon.org/images/stalin_josef.jpg

*cue The Turtles "Happy Together"*

Most were. With that number of rapes, it had to be, unless the Soviets had an army the size of the Chinese population.

Greater Alemannia, I present this to you as an award for your comments on this sensitive issue:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1126/stfudo4.png

Enjoy it, you deserve it after all.

Greater Alemannia, I present this to you as an award for your comments on this sensitive issue:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1126/stfudo4.png

Enjoy it, you deserve it after all.

I sure will, comrade. Death to the capitalist bourgeoisie, eh?

Hey look, Trostia. It's your mate:

http://www.leksikon.org/images/stalin_josef.jpg

*cue The Turtles "Happy Together"*

Hey yeah, that's pretty fucking funny. I'm real glad I told you I had family in the USSR killed by Stalin, so now you can laugh and make jokes about it just to piss me off. You don't give a SHIT about saying anything true, you just want to piss people off and whine and get attention.

You prove my point, and you are a sad embarassment to anyone who mistakenly believes you're German. You're not German. You're 100% Troll.

Hey yeah, that's pretty fucking funny. I'm real glad I told you I had family in the USSR killed by Stalin, so now you can laugh and make jokes about it just to piss me off. You don't give a SHIT about saying anything true, you just want to piss people off and whine and get attention.

You prove my point, and you are a sad embarassment to anyone who mistakenly believes you're German. You're not German. You're 100% Troll.

I had family who were killed by Stalin too. I'm just angry about it, unlike some people who side with Stalin.

I sure will, comrade. Death to the capitalist bourgeoisie, eh?

Nah, Im against killing people :)

You haven't answered my point yet. The Soviets had over ten million military dead (just looked it up). They would have obviously fielded many more who survived. The figure given was two million women raped. Unless ten is more than two, I'm not quite sure how a majority of Soviet soldiers were rapists. But I shouldn't expect an answer, should I? What with all the flaming and comparing everyone to mass murderers?

You haven't answered my point yet. The Soviets had over ten million military dead (just looked it up). They would have obviously fielded many more who survived. The figure given was two million women raped. Unless ten is more than two, I'm not quite sure how a majority of Soviet soldiers were rapists. But I shouldn't expect an answer, should I? What with all the flaming and comparing everyone to mass murderers?

Easy, they were gang rapists.

Nah, Im against killing people :)

Capitalists and kulaks aren't people, are they, comrade citoyen?

Capitalists and kulaks aren't people, are the, comrade citoyen?

Yes, they ARE people.

Hell, even YOU can be considered people.

Yes, they ARE people.

Sure they are, comrade citoyen. Until we win their elections...

Hell, even YOU can be considered people.

Somehow, I doubt that.

Somehow, I doubt that.

I agree :rolleyes: .

I had family who were killed by Stalin too. I'm just angry about it, unlike some people who side with Stalin.

Oh of course, I "side with Stalin" now because I don't agree with your idiotic generalizations? Oh wait, he's my "mate" because you want to get rid of some statues.

Yeah, you're angry. And you won't stop until you piss off everyone else too. Misery loves company, eh? Well I hate to break it to you KID, but no matter how pissed off you intentionally make me, you are NOT going to be happy, and people will STILL "fling shit" at you. Not because you're German - but because you spew bigoted trash and then whine about it.

Somehow, I doubt that.

So, according to yourself, you are NOT a sentinent human being?

So, according to yourself, you are NOT a sentinent human being?

Sentient? Yes. Human? Arguably not.

To be honest, the modern, progressive Germany is probably pretty happy they lost too. I think the history of what the Nazis did still weighs quite heavily on Germany today.

Sentient? Yes. Human? Arguably not.

And why dont you consider yourself human?

And why dont you consider yourself human?

It's easier that way. Like cutting off your hands so you don't get blood on them.

Besides, I don't interact well with... "other humans".

To be honest, the modern, progressive Germany is probably pretty happy they lost too. I think the history of what the Nazis did still weighs quite heavily on Germany today.

That is probably true, but they have much bigger problems to deal with right now than their history, starting with 10% unemployment like most of the Union of European Socialist Republics.

That is probably true, but they have much bigger problems to deal with right now than their history, starting with 10% unemployment like most of the Union of European Socialist Republics.

Yeah, another virtuous relic of socialism.

Yeah, another virtuous relic of socialism.

It's ok though, they get cradle to grave care from the Fatherland ;-)

(that was sarcasm, for those who are humor impaired)

It's easier that way. Like cutting off your hands so you don't get blood on them.

Besides, I don't interact well with... "other humans".

Somehow, that doesnt sound too smart...

It's easier that way. Like cutting off your hands so you don't get blood on them.

Besides, I don't interact well with... "other humans".


Sounds like a huge cop out to me *shrugs*

Sounds like a huge cop out to me *shrugs*

It's worth it.

And why dont you consider yourself human?

We've entered into the next state of a GA thread. "Oh woe is me. I'm diseased, no one likes me, I'm special and unique, I'm not even a human being boo fucking hoo."

It's his ... 'thing.'

Most were. With that number of rapes, it had to be, unless the Soviets had an army the size of the Chinese population.

Yet you've yet to produce any evidence to support your accusation that all Soviet soldiers were rapists. Or that even a vast majority of them were. I can cite evidence from several books to show that most front-line troops were kind and corteous, and only opened fire on troops and those with weapons - that it was the second-wave troops that did the vast majority of the raping and killing. This would prove that not all Soviet soldiers were rapists.

Please give me your evidence to prove to the contrary.

We've entered into the next state of a GA thread. "Oh woe is me. I'm diseased, no one likes me, I'm special and unique, I'm not even a human being boo fucking hoo."

It's his ... 'thing.'

Took him rather long to get here this time....

Yet you've yet to produce any evidence to support your accusation that all Soviet soldiers were rapists. Or that even a vast majority of them were. I can cite evidence from several books to show that most front-line troops were kind and corteous, and only opened fire on troops and those with weapons - that it was the second-wave troops that did the vast majority of the raping and killing. This would prove that not all Soviet soldiers were rapists.

Please give me your evidence to prove to the contrary.


Have you read Max Hastings' Armageddon on the topic?

Soviet behaviour was pretty bad - and just as premeditated as anything the SS did.

Not all Soviet Soldiers were rapists, but you'd be hard-pressed to find many rapist-soldiers who were not Soviets, when it comes to percentages.

Have you read Max Hastings' Armageddon on the topic?

Soviet behaviour was pretty bad - and just as premeditated as anything the SS did.

Not all Soviet Soldiers were rapists, but you'd be hard-pressed to find many rapist-soldiers who were not Soviets, when it comes to percentages.

I have indeed - it's an excellent book. And I'm by no means stating that Soviet behaviour was excusable or in the minority. It wasn't; there were mass rapes and there was behaviour that rivalled with what the Nazis did; the fact that it was actually encouraged from up above makes it only worse still.

However, as a historian, it angers me to see people like K-P making such generalisations. I know a large, large number of rapes took place, and many Soviet soldiers participated. But to say that all Soviet soldiers were rapists just annoys me in ways you can't imagine. I strive for historical accuracy and fairness - and when I see something like this, I have to act.