So Liberals...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

My instinctive response to bullying is to punch the bully in the jaw.

744908[/snapback]

 

Unfortunately, you're so bloody uncoordinated about it that you just end up slapping yourself in the face repeatedly.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Could you perhaps, then provide evidence (from non-bald headed white men's sites) supporting the theory that Ehrenberg was, in fact the author of those leaflets?

745048[/snapback]

 

He was. I've read them. I've also read the STAVKA denounciation of him for them. You see, Ehrenberg was a rabble-rouser, but he did not represent official Soviet policy.

 

Which was the point of contention. Kurt says Ehrenberg, as Propaganda Minister, set policy with his writing. I countered with the simple fact that the policy-makers (up to and including the Soviet Minister of Propaganda) denounced Ehrenberg for it. Kurt ignored that...because I was a big ol' meanie to him.

 

Kurt ALSO doesn't understand that, concerning the topic of Red Army atrocities in Germany and Ehrenberg's causal role (or lack thereof) in them, his mistaken belief that Ehrenberg was the Minister of Propaganda speaks directly to the subject of the rest of his mistaken opinions. He THINKS my discussion of Ehrenberg was trivial...in fact, his misunderstanding of Ehrenberg's role in the war both causal and demonstrative of his complete misunderstanding of the late war perid. And because he's too much of a !@#$ing dolt to put it together.

[GG]

He was.  I've read them.  I've also read the STAVKA denounciation of him for them.  You see, Ehrenberg was a rabble-rouser, but he did not represent official Soviet policy.

 

745070[/snapback]

 

Fair enough, macaca's cousin is right (again)

 

Of course I would then like an explanation of how an article written in July 1942, addressed the Russian army's advance into Germany, six months BEFORE the Battle of Stalingrad was over....

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Fair enough, macaca's cousin is right (again)

 

Of course I would then like an explanation of how an article written in July 1942, addressed the Russian army's advance into Germany, six months BEFORE the Battle of Stalingrad was over....

745086[/snapback]

 

Actually, I believe that article was written in the Stalingrad-Kursk-Kiev time frame (i.e. between November '42 and January '44). It's actually another Ehrenberg article from April '45 that Kurt believes - mistakenly, of course, it is Kurt - he's quoting.

 

My books on the Eastern front are still packed away, including my Ehrenberg references, so I can't verify that right now.

[KurtGodel77]

If you think Ehrenberg was the Minister of Propaganda setting the policy of genocide for the Red Army...it rather calls into question your entire interpretation of Soviet policy, seeing how you can't even get that rather basic fact correct.

 

One also has to wonder, if Ehrenberg was calling for a genocide campaign against Germans, why he didn't just exhort Red Army soldiers to marry them... 

745064[/snapback]

I never said Ehrenberg was "setting the policy of genocide for the Red Army." Rather, he was carrying out Stalin's wishes that the Germans be treated brutally. When you're finished acting like a spoiled child, I suggest you read up on the Soviet deportation of Germans

 

The deportation was genocide, as the following link describes. The board software messes the link up because it's too long, so you'll need to copy and paste it into the the top of your browser:

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_number_of_deaths_in_connection_with_expulsion_of_Germans_after_WWII

The fact the Soviet government murdered as many as three million Germans after the war lessens the credibility of your claim that they didn't want to murder German civilians while the war was still underway. Ehrenberg himself cited one of Stalin's directives as the inspiration for his command to kill German men, women, and children. But whether the Soviet genocide against the German people began during or after the war, it was still genocide.

 

Speaking of which, I suggest you read up on the Soviet genocide against the Polish, the Soviet genocide against the Ukrainians, the Soviet genocide against the Lithuanians, as well as a general summary of of communist mass murder.

 

Right now, you've gotten too caught up in trying to win this debate. I'm asking you to put aside the instinct to argue for a little while. Realize the victims of communism were human beings. Their lives mattered; and the depth of the tragedy increased with each new grave. Contrary to popular belief, this tragedy could have been avoided had the Western democracies acted differently.

 

The communist track record was clear--Lenin was a brutal murderer, and Stalin was even worse. Western governments knew this, and they didn't care. From 1918 - 1945, the only nations which took an active interest in containing Soviet expansionism were Nazi Germany and its allies. Understanding how and why Western democracies came to be indifferent to Soviet mass murder is a good first step toward preventing history from repeating itself.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Quest for fire  was a bang fest, little primitive and little early kama sutra and produced our diverse cultures and whacked out turn ons that is what america is  and is about   To quote Ari fliesher

744947[/snapback]

 

 

CRO MAGNON...

 

C'mon X. I know you know better ....

[X. Benedict]

CRO MAGNON...

 

C'mon X. I know you know better ....

745319[/snapback]

 

I just figured he was a neanderthal type with a side-arm.

[GG]

Actually, I believe that article was written in the Stalingrad-Kursk-Kiev time frame (i.e. between November '42 and January '44).  It's actually another Ehrenberg article from April '45 that Kurt believes - mistakenly, of course, it is Kurt - he's quoting.

 

My books on the Eastern front are still packed away, including my Ehrenberg references, so I can't verify that right now.

745140[/snapback]

 

The citations that I found date the "Kill" article/leaflet to 1942 as the German army was steamrolling USSR, and the 1944 piece was where Ehrenberg claimed that he didn't write the original piece (probably to save face after the war tide turned)

 

Still doesn't stop Kurt from revising history. I'd also like to know how Hitler "contained" Soviet expansion by giving them Poland and the Baltics. Kurt also conveniently ignores that the West was still war weary in the '30 and that the West's efforts to contain Bolsheviks in 1918 were futile.

 

Gotta love Kurt's nostalgia thinking that Nazi Germany was the only bulwark against communism. Never mind that a major reason for Hitler's rise was West's mistaken belief that Hitler was the lesser of the two evils. History tells us they miscalculated both on a major scale.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The citations that I found date the "Kill" article/leaflet to 1942 as the German army was  steamrolling USSR, and the 1944 piece was where Ehrenberg claimed that he didn't write the original piece (probably to save face after the war tide turned)

 

Still doesn't stop Kurt from revising history.  I'd also like to know how Hitler "contained" Soviet expansion by giving them Poland and the Baltics.  Kurt also conveniently ignores that the West was still war weary in the '30 and that the West's efforts to contain Bolsheviks in 1918 were futile. 

 

Gotta love Kurt's nostalgia thinking that Nazi Germany was the only bulwark against communism.  Never mind that a major reason for Hitler's rise was West's mistaken belief that Hitler was the lesser of the two evils.  History tells us they miscalculated both on a major scale.

745430[/snapback]

 

In Kurt's defense, he's not revising history. He'd actually have to know something about it to revise it.

 

The claim that Nazi Germany served a vital and noble purpose as a bulwark against communist expansion is most commonly heard expressed by former members of the SS. A lot of Waffen-SS members, in particular, like to claim that the Waffen-SS, due to its multinational character (non-Germans couldn't serve in the German Army, but the combat arm of the SS was open to them), is the prototype of NATO.

 

Somehow, given his racial theories, I don't find Kurt's parroting of other typically Nazi views all that surprising...

[X. Benedict]

In Kurt's defense, he's not revising history.  He'd actually have to know something about it to revise it.

 

The claim that Nazi Germany served a vital and noble purpose as a bulwark against communist expansion is most commonly heard expressed by former members of the SS.  A lot of Waffen-SS members, in particular, like to claim that the Waffen-SS, due to its multinational character (non-Germans couldn't serve in the German Army, but the combat arm of the SS was open to them), is the prototype of NATO.

 

Somehow, given his racial theories, I don't find Kurt's parroting of other typically Nazi views all that surprising... 

745432[/snapback]

 

Working book title: How to Nurture your Inner Schutzstaffel to Create a Better World

[GG]

In Kurt's defense, he's not revising history.  He'd actually have to know something about it to revise it.

 

The claim that Nazi Germany served a vital and noble purpose as a bulwark against communist expansion is most commonly heard expressed by former members of the SS.  A lot of Waffen-SS members, in particular, like to claim that the Waffen-SS, due to its multinational character (non-Germans couldn't serve in the German Army, but the combat arm of the SS was open to them), is the prototype of NATO.

 

Somehow, given his racial theories, I don't find Kurt's parroting of other typically Nazi views all that surprising... 

745432[/snapback]

 

I guess we're disagreeing on this one, sort of. My view of the West's acceptance of Hitler is framed by the pre-war, mid '30s attitudes in DC, Paris & London, not on the post-war apologists.

[Wacka]

Actually, I believe that article was written in the Stalingrad-Kursk-Kiev time frame (i.e. between November '42 and January '44).  It's actually another Ehrenberg article from April '45 that Kurt believes - mistakenly, of course, it is Kurt - he's quoting.

 

My books on the Eastern front are still packed away, including my Ehrenberg references, so I can't verify that right now.

745140[/snapback]

 

 

Arguing when an article was written by someone that 99.9999999999999999999% of people have no idea who he was.

 

I'm on your side in this debate, but the above does fit the definition of an uber-geek.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I guess we're disagreeing on this one, sort of.  My view of the West's acceptance of Hitler is framed by the pre-war, mid '30s attitudes in DC, Paris & London, not on the post-war apologists.

745473[/snapback]

 

Sort-of disagreeing. I'm not agreeing with the post-war apologists, just stating their views, and pointing out the unsurprising congruence of Kurt's opinions with them.

[KurtGodel77]

I'd also like to know how Hitler "contained" Soviet expansion by giving them Poland and the Baltics.  Kurt also conveniently ignores that the West was still war weary in the '30 and that the West's efforts to contain Bolsheviks in 1918 were futile. 

 

Gotta love Kurt's nostalgia thinking that Nazi Germany was the only bulwark against communism.  Never mind that a major reason for Hitler's rise was West's mistaken belief that Hitler was the lesser of the two evils.  History tells us they miscalculated both on a major scale.

You bring up a good point, in that from the fall of 1939 to the spring of 1941, Nazi Germany did nothing to contain Soviet expansionism. As you point out, the Soviets seized that opportunity to grab the eastern portion of Poland, the Baltic states, part of Finland, and other territory.

 

But the long-range goal of German foreign policy was the destruction of the Soviet government, as shown by the German attack on the Soviet Union in the spring of 1941.

 

The West's "efforts" to contain Blosheviks in 1918 were merely token. I'm not saying the U.S. or European democracies should have launched a war of liberation in the Soviet Union. But some containment might have been nice. Take the Ukraine, which achieved independence during the Russian Revolution, only to be invaded by the Soviet government a few years later. Subsequently, the Soviet government used hunger as a weapon to kill 7 - 10 million Ukrainians, while selling their food on the London Exchange. Had the Western democracies pledged themselves to defend the Ukraine against Soviet expansion, the invasion probably wouldn't have happened, and a holocaust would have been prevented. Western democracies didn't start pledging themselves to defend anyone against Soviet expansionism until after WWII. By that time, Sovet hegemony had spread deep into the heart of Central Europe.

 

But if the Western democracies were unwilling or unable to defend nations such as the Ukraine from Soviet expansion, they at least should have put Germany in a position where it could have done something. Instead, the Versailles Treaty limited Germany to a merely token army. Suppose Germany had remained demilitarized. Once the Soviets had completed their industrialization and militarization program, it would have been relatively easy for their army to annex every nation east of France. And, to be honest, I believe the Soviets' 300+ divisions would have easily defeated France's 100 or so divisions. And as for Germany, the Soviets might not have had to invade it at all. Because the Versailles Treaty kept the Germans in dire conditions where food often ran short, the communists stood an excellent chance of overthrowing Germany's government.

[GG]

But the long-range goal of German foreign policy was the destruction of the Soviet government, as shown by the German attack on the Soviet Union in the spring of 1941. 

 

The West's "efforts" to contain Blosheviks in 1918 were merely token. 

745505[/snapback]

 

Goebels should be proud.

 

If by token you mean having British, French and US soldiers physically fighting in Russia in 1918-1919, I agree with you.. Of course after failing to do anything with an actual military presence in 1919, you wave the magic history wand and say that the West should have done something in the '20s, and then things would have been better. (An appropriate smiley doesn't exist for this interaction)

 

The most laughable point is your continued insistence that Germany saved Europe from the Soviets. I can also make an equally baseless claim, that if it wasn't for the diversion of WWII, USSR would have collapsed much sooner.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Goebels should be proud.

 

If by token you mean having British, French and US soldiers physically fighting in Russia in 1918-1919, I agree with you..  Of course after failing to do anything with an actual military presence in 1919, you wave the magic history wand and say that the West should have done something in the '20s, and then things would have been better.    (An appropriate smiley doesn't exist for this interaction)

 

The most laughable point is your continued insistence that Germany saved Europe from the Soviets.  I can also make an equally baseless claim, that if it wasn't for the diversion of WWII, USSR would have collapsed much sooner.

745583[/snapback]

 

Ain't he a hoot? Gotta love the "Because they invaded, it was a long-range goal..." logic, too. Clearly, it was a long-range goal to occupy the Parthenon, since Germany invaded Greece as well...

[X. Benedict]

Suppose Germany had remained demilitarized.  Once the Soviets had completed their industrialization and militarization program, it would have been relatively easy for their army to annex every nation east of France.

745505[/snapback]

 

That is one hell of a supposition.

[KurtGodel77]

Ain't he a hoot? Gotta love the "Because they invaded, it was a long-range goal..." logic, too.  Clearly, it was a long-range goal to occupy the Parthenon, since Germany invaded Greece as well...

745593[/snapback]

Earlier you were advocating genocide against the Lebanese. Now you're lying about long-range German foreign policy goals. Keep up the good work.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Earlier you were advocating genocide against the Lebanese.

 

Funny how you're the only one that picked that up. Probably because everyone else is aware enough to understand hyperbole.

 

  Now you're lying about long-range German foreign policy goals.  Keep up the good work.

745741[/snapback]

 

 

Clearly, you don't understand the use of sarcasm in a reducto ad absurdum counter-argument, either. Come to think of it, there's not a whole lot you actually do understand, do you?

[KurtGodel77]

If by token you mean having British, French and US soldiers physically fighting in Russia in 1918-1919, I agree with you..  Of course after failing to do anything with an actual military presence in 1919, you wave the magic history wand and say that the West should have done something in the '20s, and then things would have been better.    (An appropriate smiley doesn't exist for this interaction)

You'll recollect that the Russian government made enormous sacrifices during WWI; and that these sacrifices had a lot to do with why it was overthrown. As Russia was fighting on the Allied side, other Allied nations felt a little guilty about this, and sent a few troops to help the remnants of the old government fight the communists. Not enough troops to make a real difference, but it did allow the communist propaganda machine to paint the nationalists as deeply compromised by non-Russian connections.

 

After the Allied governments proved themselves unwilling or unable to save the Russian nationalist government, their actions helped pave the way for future Soviet expansion. As I mentioned earlier, the treaty of Versailles limited Germany to a merely token army. The Treaty of Saint Germain did the same to Austria, the Treaty of Trianon disarmed Hungary, the treaty of Neuilly disarmed Bulgaria, and the treaty of Sèvres was intended to disarm Turkey. Am I the only one who sees that crippling the militaries of the nations to the west of the Soviet Union might not have been the best way to contain Soviet military expansion?

 

Why was it necessary to wait until after WWII to construct NATO? Why not do it after the end of WWI? Such an alliance would have prevented WWII, while keeping Soviet mass murder out of most of Europe. It wouldn't even have been necessary for the isolationist U.S. to make any real commitments. Simply allowing the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to be prosperous, and to build up their own militaries, would have been more than adequate to peacefully prevent Soviet westward expansion. Had the Ukraine been part of this alliance, the Ukrainian famine would have been prevented.

 

But other than sending a few troops to help the Russian nationalists, the Western democracies did precisely nothing to contain Soviet expansionism until after WWII. No mutual assistance treaties, no pacts, nothing. Poland is a good example. The British and French governments agreed to protect Poland against a German invasion, but not against a Soviet invasion. Well guess what? The Soviets invaded, and literally decimated the population they conquered. One person out of every ten was murdered. Earlier, the Ukraine had experienced a similar invasion followed by mass murder, so Western democracies knew what to expect. But apparently, they didn't care.