So Liberals...

[KurtGodel77]

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

I'll provide a little historical context for your genocide quote. In the early '80s, PLO terrorists operating in Lebanon attacked northern Israel. Israel responded with violent force; upon which the PLO terrorists fled into populated areas. Ronald Reagan described the ensuing conflict:

 

Israeli planes, gunboats, and artillery units had begun attacking the fringes of West Beirut in what appeared to be a relentless and indiscriminate bombardment of neighborhoods filled with Lebanese civilians who had absolutely no role in the Israeli-PLO conflict. . . . Then on August 4 . . . I was awakened at 6:30 AM by my national security advisor. He said that the Israelis had just moved into new positions within West Beirut and were shelling the city with a savage ferocity that was killing more and more civilians. . . . mounting attacks by Israel were taking an increasing death toll on the women and children of Beirut. . . . Despite our appeals for restraint, Israel opened a new and even more brutal attack on civilian neighborhoods in Beirut that sickened me and many others in the White House. . . . I told [begin] it had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word ‘Holocaust’ deliberately and said the symbol of his country was becoming, ‘a picture of a seven month old baby with its arms blown off.’ . . . After the phone calls, Israel reduced the intensity of its bombardment in Beirut—but its ground and air forces then began attacking populated areas in northern Lebanon, apparently with the intent of eradicating PLO strongholds in that region. . . . In Beirut, [a minor militia group] entered a Palestine refugee camp and massacred men, women, and children. The Israelis did nothing to prevent or halt it. George Schultz and I met and agreed upon a blunt statement which he delivered to the Israeli ambassador. .  . . Brezhnev sent me a message accusing Israel of perpetrating a ‘bloody orgy,’ and implied we were a party to it. In February 1983, after a judicial panel asserted that he had been indirectly responsible for the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps, Ariel Sharon resigned as Israel’s minister of defense. . . . I hoped this would mark a change in Israeli policies and help get the peace process started again.

Israel has already committed what Reagan described as a "Holocaust" against the people of Lebanon. The circumstances were very similar to those at present. That's why I didn't interpret your endorsement of genocide against Lebanese as hyperbole.

[Chilly]

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

745761[/snapback]

 

Now don't you bring shapes into this!

 

[Jon in Pasadena]

C'mon AD admit it - you start these monstrosities on purpose, right?

[KurtGodel77]

C'mon AD admit it - you start these monstrosities on purpose, right?

Fittingly, AD began this thread by talking about the Aryan Brotherhood. After being called a hippie, Arm started promoting eugenics. Then we heard about my earlier statements opposing "marital genocide," as well as Monkeyface's view that "genocide works." And your problem with a thread like this is . . . ?

[Orton's Arm]

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.

Suppose both you and CTM are right about this. Maybe Stalin issued some directive which called for Soviet soldiers to kill German women and children. Ehrenberg would have spread the word of this to Soviet soldiers, while making the language more detailed and lively. But once the killings began, the German soldiers might well have responded by fighting even harder. At that point it would be time for a new policy. There's no way any official Soviet organization was going to say that Stalin had messed up. But the policy change could be communicated by announcing Ehrenberg had made a mistake. Hence the condemnation of his behavior CTM read about. The Soviets would postpone their genocide against the Germans until after the war.

 

I figured I'd throw this idea out there in case someone knew of information which would confirm or disprove it.

[cromagnum]

CRO MAGNON...

 

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

745319[/snapback]

I know nothing Shultz was great on hogans heroes, and thats my story and I'm sticking to it....I quess, unless you really want to know what I know, you know? But remember I'm partial liberal ,partial conservative, independent and in no particular order...Freedom in america is great, and so what if I'm a decendent of cromagnon and neanderthals, and my cousin is lucy Fugg it were all decended from billion year old carbon derived from supernovas and other violent actions in the cosmos that was carried by the cosmic winds that seeded the universe and earth so we can bullsh-- on a message board about planned genetics to be a better bullsh--er in a world full of bullsh-- and spin in our elliptical orbit around the sun that one day will cease to exist, and probably supernova and scatter our sh-- to provide more carbon to the universe carried by the solar wind..Or collapse into a blackhole and spit us out the otherside of the vortex into the unknown parralell universes Insomnia sucks, but the coffee is good especially the columbian coffee America is good to me joe six pack, have a great one, sincerely cromagnum, Unga Bunga:)Is that what you know I know? cuz I don't I know you know, well maybe?

 

What about you EII you know better?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'll provide a little historical context for your genocide quote.  In the early '80s, PLO terrorists operating in Lebanon attacked northern Israel.  Israel responded with violent force; upon which the PLO terrorists fled into populated areas.  Ronald Reagan described the ensuing conflict:

Israel has already committed what Reagan described as a "Holocaust" against the people of Lebanon.  The circumstances were very similar to those at present.  That's why I didn't interpret your endorsement of genocide against Lebanese as hyperbole.

745781[/snapback]

 

You didn't interpret my statement as hyperbole because of something Ronald Reagan said 20 years ago? Even though I said immediately after I typed it that I was obviously being over the top? Because...why? Reagan is somehow a better source for my quotes than I am?

 

THIS is why people think you're such a retard.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

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.

 

You're kidding, right? Let's dissect this statement by statement.

 

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.

 

Everyone made enormous sacrifices. Arguably, the French sacrifices were worse. The French government wasn't overthrown. The overthrow of the Russian Tsar had more to do with the Russian governmental system being very antiquated- a form of serfdom western Europe had abandon 200+ years previously - and the Tsar being an ass hole.

 

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.

 

Details, man, details. How many troops, where, for what reason? And what role did weariness of the blood-letting of the First World War have to do with it?

 

You see, it's all well-and-good to say "The Allied powers wanted to aid the Bolsheviks, so they didn't commit to propping up the Russian Monarchy"...except that the monarchy was dead months before the Allied powers ever committed to anything. How can you have a pro-monarchy intervention for a non-existent monarchy? Ah, but I forget...historical fact has little to do with the nonsense you post.

 

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?

 

Are you the only one that doesn't see how the treaties of Brest-Litovsk, Versailles, and St. Germain, in dissolving the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy and granting independence to Lithuaina, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Finland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, actually did contain Bolshevik (not Soviet - again, your knowledge of historical facts sucks) military expansion westward. That containment lasted until the rearming of Germany shielded the USSR from any meaningful Western response to westward expansion. The Soviet Union didn't absorb the Baltics, Eastern Poland, or Bessarabia until Germany rearmed. While Germany was disarmed...the Soviet Union did nothing. Ergo, your whole argument is fallacious based on that pesky little "historical fact" thingy you keep ignoring.

 

Why was it necessary to wait until after WWII to construct NATO? Why not do it after the end of WWI?

 

Because the driving force behind NATO - US involvement - was absent minus US ratification of the League of Nations, you moron. The rest of Europe was too war-weary. Really, you can't just selectively ignore facts.

 

Such an alliance would have prevented WWII, while keeping Soviet mass murder out of most of Europe.

 

Instead, the Treaty of Versailles kept "Soviet mass murder" out of Eastern Europe, as I already outlined above.

 

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.

 

For example, I'm sure if the Poles had a strong military, they would have contained Bolshevik expansion. Oh, wait...they did. It's called the Russo-Polish war. Ended with the Treaty of Riga in 1920.

 

Or if the Czechs had a strong military...of course, they did too, until they were handed over to a remilitarized Germany.

 

Or if the Romanians had a strong military...of course, they were an Allied power, so why would they be disarmed? They won. And the Soviets didn't take any of their land until after Germany remilitarized and precluded Western interference.

 

Or if the Finns had a strong military...but of course, they successfully fought the Bolsheviks to gain their own independence, and weren't invaded by the Soviets until - you guessed it - Germany remilitarized. (Funny how that "remilitarized Germany" thing keeps popping up in connection with Soviet expansion, i'n't it?)

 

Really, the salient event that allowed Soviet expansion westward wasn't the demilitarization of Germany by Versailles, it was the remilitarization of Germany after Versailles was trashed. Those little "historical fact" thingies can be awfully irritating when you're consistently getting them wrong?

 

Had the Ukraine been part of this alliance, the Ukrainian famine would have been prevented.

 

I can't argue that...simply because it's based on such a ridiculous foundation of bull sh-- a priori assumptions that there's no point. "If Britain, France, and the US had ignored the Western Front and instead fought against the Bolsheviks with Germany, more Russian Republics would have been free to join an alliance that didn't exist against a threat that wasn't realized until 20 years later...triggered by a proximate cause (German remilitarization) that itself would never have been realized if the Western Powers had fought the Bolsheviks on the German side!!! Makes perfect sense...if you ignore historical fact and logic, as you're prone to do.

 

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.

 

Poland is a very good example. The Russo-Polish war was won by Poland with Western aid.

 

 

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

 

Well, guess what? No one knew the Molotov-Ribbertrop Pact include provisions for the partition of Poland until after the Soviets walked across the border. That's why that provision of the Non-Aggression pact is referred to as "secret".

 

That's beside the fact that numerous pre-established assistance pacts were still in force guaranteeing Polish independence from Soviet aggression as well as German. But, again, when you selectively pick and choose your historical facts...

 

...and literally decimated the population they conquered. One person out of every ten was murdered.

 

Pitiful. The Nazis were much more efficient. They achieved a rate close to one in five. Too bad the West "disarmed" them and so "allowed" the Soviet aggression, else so many more Poles would have lived.

 

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.

 

The Ukraine was Russain territory since the 1600's until 1993. One of those little historical facts you keep ignoring.

 

 

This is why I keep harping on things like Ilya Ehrenberg's role in Soviet propaganda. Little facts like that are often important; you consistently get them wrong, when you don't outright ignore them, which leads to !@#$ed up theories about the Democratic party's complicity in German genocide as perpetrated by Stalin, or nonsense about racial purity based on blacks being a separate and distinct species.

[KurtGodel77]

You see, it's all well-and-good to say "The Allied powers wanted to aid the Bolsheviks, so they didn't commit to propping up the Russian Monarchy"

Your post is replete with errors, so I'll start by addressing this one. I never wrote that the Allied powers wanted to aid the Bolsheviks, at least not during the early '20s. FDR was deeply interested in helping the Soviet Union expand, but that didn't come until later. Rather, I feel that during the '20s, there was a lack of Allied interest in containing Soviet expansionism. This lack of interest was shown by Allied inaction during the invasion of the Ukraine, as well as by the treaties which forbade many of the Soviet Union's neighbors from having credible militaries.

 

That containment lasted until the rearming of Germany shielded the USSR from any meaningful Western response to westward expansion.

You mean like the meaningful Western response to the Soviet invasion of the Ukraine? Which Western nations do you think could have contained Soviet expansion? The isolationist U.S.? Britain, with its relatively small army? France, a nation whose people often saw deep similiarities between the Russian Revolution and the French? The French people weren't told about Soviet mass murder, and radical leftist groups were (and are) very influential in France. Expecting France of all nations to fight a war against Soviet expansionism is getting one's hopes rather high.

 

The Soviet Union didn't absorb the Baltics, Eastern Poland, or Bessarabia until Germany rearmed.  While Germany was disarmed...the Soviet Union did nothing.  Ergo, your whole argument is fallacious based on that pesky little "historical fact" thingy you keep ignoring.

You've fallen into the classic trap of assuming correlation implies causation. It doesn't. The first time the Soviet Union invaded Poland, the former's military was weak. This was in 1920, long before Hitler took control of Germany. The Polish were able to throw the Soviet invaders out of their country, and to actually move the Polish/Soviet border east. The Soviets became less adventuresome for a while, focusing on pacifying their own country, while building up heavy industry and their military. An effort which would have been good enough to repulse a Soviet invasion in 1920 wouldn't have been nearly enough to help in 1940.

Because the driving force behind NATO - US involvement - was absent minus US ratification of the League of Nations, you moron.    The rest of Europe was too war-weary.  Really, you can't just selectively ignore facts.

Once again, you failed to understand my post. I suggested the nations of Eastern and Central Europe could have been allowed to be prosperous, with reasonable militaries. Tying these nations together in an anti-Soviet alliance would have been enough to prevent Soviet expansion, even without American military involvement.

Instead, the Treaty of Versailles kept "Soviet mass murder" out of Eastern Europe, as I already outlined above.

Tell that to the 7 million Ukrainian dead.

For example, I'm sure if the Poles had a strong military, they would have contained Bolshevik expansion.  Oh, wait...they did.  It's called the Russo-Polish war.  Ended with the Treaty of Riga in 1920. 

You're living in a dream world if you think Poland could have stopped a Soviet invasion once the Soviets had finished building up their industry and military. It's a question of numbers.

 

Well, guess what?  No one knew the Molotov-Ribbertrop Pact include provisions for the partition of Poland until after the Soviets walked across the border.    That's why that provision of the Non-Aggression pact is referred to as "secret".

True, but hardly relevant. The promise Britain and France gave Poland protected that nation against German aggression, but not against Soviet aggression. When both nations proceeded to invade Poland, the Western democracies went to war against Germany but not the Soviets.

 

Pitiful.  The Nazis were much more efficient.  They achieved a rate close to one in five. 

I'll ignore the callous tone you've chosen with respect to Polish victims of Soviet mass murder. The figures you're using for Nazi killings are probably inflated. The Soviets often liked to blame their own killings on the Nazis. Many historians had a far more favorable view of the Soviets than of the Nazis, and so didn't inquire too closely about these claims. While neither the Nazis nor the Soviets shied away from brutal acts, the Soviets were typically worse.

 

!@#$ed up theories about the Democratic party's complicity in German genocide as perpetrated by Stalin

Actually, FDR directly took part in genocide against the German people through the Dresden bombing and other extermination bombings. He was also indirectly responsible, by pursuing policies intended to put much of Europe into Soviet hands.

 

or nonsense about racial purity based on blacks being a separate and distinct species.

A separate and distinct species? You really don't understand my posts, do you?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Your post is replete with errors, so I'll start by addressing this one.

 

Uh, no, actually it's not. It's factually correct. It just doesn't correspond to the nonsense you make up.

 

I never wrote that the Allied powers wanted to aid the Bolsheviks, at least not during the early '20s. FDR was deeply interested in helping the Soviet Union expand, but that didn't come until later.

 

...case in point. Once again, we're back to "FDR was a Stalinist stooge." Or "Stalin was FDR's stooge." One of the two, at least. I'd wish you'd just pick one; it's so hard to follow your nonsense when you keep changing the story.

 

Rather, I feel that during the '20s, there was a lack of Allied interest in containing Soviet expansionism. This lack of interest was shown by Allied inaction during the invasion of the Ukraine, as well as by the treaties which forbade many of the Soviet Union's neighbors from having credible militaries.

 

Not conicidentally, the lack of Western (not "Allied") interest in containing Soviet expansionism is concomitant with the lack of Soviet expansionism in the '20s. The Soviets did not "invade" the Ukraine...the Ukraine was Soviet.

 

And I've already debunked the "Soviet neighbors not having credible militaries"...by illustrating that they in fact DID. Poland, again...who actually DID invade the Ukraine.

 

You've fallen into the classic trap of assuming correlation implies causation. It doesn't.

 

You've fallen into the classic trap of thinking your opinions are reality. They're not. They're opinions...and misinformed ones at that.

 

The first time the Soviet Union invaded Poland, the former's military was weak. This was in 1920, long before Hitler took control of Germany. The Polish were able to throw the Soviet invaders out of their country, and to actually move the Polish/Soviet border east. The Soviets became less adventuresome for a while, focusing on pacifying their own country, while building up heavy industry and their military. An effort which would have been good enough to repulse a Soviet invasion in 1920 wouldn't have been nearly enough to help in 1940.

 

So let me get this straight...the Poles, with French assistance, successfully defended themselves from Soviet aggression, causing the Soviets to not be aggressive, and this is an example of Western Europe not combatting Soviet aggression????

 

Once again, you failed to understand my post. I suggested the nations of Eastern and Central Europe could have been allowed to be prosperous, with reasonable militaries. Tying these nations together in an anti-Soviet alliance would have been enough to prevent Soviet expansion, even without American military involvement.

 

Once again, you fail to understand historical fact. What Eastern and Central European countries weren't prosperous? Bulgaria and Albania. Maybe Romania. That's about it. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Austria, Poland...all had relatively strong healthy economies (relative to everyone else in the world...this is the depression era we're talking about, after all). All also had mutual defense pacts in place with Britain and/or France through the '20s and early '30s to contain Soviet aggression. Of course, that's a fact, and something you can't be bothered with.

 

You're living in a dream world if you think Poland could have stopped a Soviet invasion once the Soviets had finished building up their industry and military. It's a question of numbers.

 

Never said they could. However...they didn't have to, until German remilitarization shielded the Soviet Union from any response from Western powers. You see, there's this thing called geography: Between France and Poland is this country called Germany. If Germany is incapable of interdecting French aid to Poland, the French can help Poland (as in 1920). If Germany IS capable of doing so, the French can't (as in 1939). Disarming Germany allowed the Western powers to contain the Bolsheviks. Rearming Germany - and the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact - is what broke Western containment. It's all very simple if you could be bothered to pull your head out of your ass.

 

True, but hardly relevant. The promise Britain and France gave Poland protected that nation against German aggression, but not against Soviet aggression. When both nations proceeded to invade Poland, the Western democracies went to war against Germany but not the Soviets.

 

Highly relevant. You're claiming that the Western powers were supposed to guarantee Polish soverignty against Soviet aggression because of German threats. Again, you're tripping over that whole "reality" thing again. Show me what was supposed to motivate the West to issue yet another guarantee to Poland against Soviet aggression. And don't tell me "Because the Soviets eventually invaded"...we live in a world where cause precedes effect, not the other way around.

 

I'll ignore the callous tone you've chosen with respect to Polish victims of Soviet mass murder. The figures you're using for Nazi killings are probably inflated. The Soviets often liked to blame their own killings on the Nazis. Many historians had a far more favorable view of the Soviets than of the Nazis, and so didn't inquire too closely about these claims.

 

Ah. Historians whitewashed Soviet atrocities in Poland and blamed the Nazis because they're bolshevik sympathizers. Last time I heard this, coincidentally, was from the Nazis.

 

While neither the Nazis nor the Soviets shied away from brutal acts, the Soviets were typically worse.

 

You're callous tone you've chosen with respect to the Holocaust is noted. And unsurprising, considering your racial philosophies.

 

Actually, FDR directly took part in genocide against the German people through the Dresden bombing and other extermination bombings. He was also indirectly responsible, by pursuing policies intended to put much of Europe into Soviet hands.

 

Don't forget the Morgenthau plan. Musn't forget that genocidal plot against the Germans either.

 

Do you even know what happened at Dresden? Even money says you dust of that moldy old myth about USAAF Mustangs strafing innocent civilians on the roads leading out of Dresden...

 

A separate and distinct species? You really don't understand my posts, do you?

746259[/snapback]

 

No more than you do, really. You're the one that said 100k years of racial isolation caused speciation in Homo Sapiens. I don't need to understand it to quote it.

[KurtGodel77]

You didn't interpret my statement as hyperbole because of something Ronald Reagan said 20 years ago? 

 

Wrong. I didn't interpret your statement as hyperbole because of events that happened 20 years ago. Also, you implied that any diplomatic solution would only be temporary, whereas your "genocide works" proposal would be a more permanent solution. A final solution, if you will.

[Chilly]

Wrong.  I didn't interpret your statement as hyperbole because of events that happened 20 years ago.  Also, you implied that any diplomatic solution would only be temporary, whereas your "genocide works" proposal would be a more permanent solution.  A final solution, if you will.

746304[/snapback]

 

Kurt, Click Here

 

Now, realize that he was suggesting that sometimes they have to work out their own problems (in a way the World deem's acceptable) for it to actually be anything other then a bandaid.

 

Thats it.

 

And you say that I'm the one who makes something out of nothing. Seesh.

[KurtGodel77]

...case in point.  Once again, we're back to "FDR was a Stalinist stooge."  Or "Stalin was FDR's stooge."  One of the two, at least.  I'd wish you'd just pick one; it's so hard to follow your nonsense when you keep changing the story.

My "story" is simple and unchanging: FDR was deeply pro-Soviet. You often remember my posts incorrectly, which makes it seem to you like I keep changing my mind.

Not conicidentally, the lack of Western (not "Allied") interest in containing Soviet expansionism is concomitant with the lack of Soviet expansionism in the '20s.    The Soviets did not "invade" the Ukraine...the Ukraine was Soviet. 

Dead wrong. You're really wrong here. I feel myself drowning in the ocean of your wrongness.

 

On 1 November 1918, an independent Republic of Western Ukraine was declared after the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. On 22 January 1919, the Ukrainian People's Republic and the Republic of Western Ukraine united and established an independent Ukrainian state, recognized by over 40 other nations.

 

The new government, however, could not maintain its authority in the face of civil strife and the threat of the approaching Bolshevik, pro-Tsarist, and Polish forces.

And I've already debunked the "Soviet neighbors not having credible militaries"...by illustrating that they in fact DID. 

Wrong. I wrote that many Soviet neighbors were forbidden to have credible militaries. You "refuted" this by talking about a different Soviet neighbor which did have a credibly military.

 

Once again, you fail to understand historical fact.  What Eastern and Central European countries weren't prosperous?  Bulgaria and Albania.  Maybe Romania.  That's about it.  Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Austria, Poland...all had relatively strong healthy economies (relative to everyone else in the world...this is the depression era we're talking about, after all).  All also had mutual defense pacts in place with Britain and/or France through the '20s and early '30s to contain Soviet aggression.

When the Soviets invaded Poland in 1920, did either France or Britain declare war on the Soviets? No. Neither did they do so in 1939, when the Soviets invaded Poland once again. Maybe the threat of a few British or French soldiers would be enough to deter Soviet expansionism when the Soviet Union was weak. But a Soviet Union that could throw over 300 divisions into an invasion wouldn't worry about that. If need be, those 300+ divisions could deal with French intervention by conquering France.

 

Ah.  Historians whitewashed Soviet atrocities in Poland and blamed the Nazis because they're bolshevik sympathizers.  Last time I heard this, coincidentally, was from the Nazis.

You're obviously unfamilar with the Soviet execution of the Polish officer corps, and their efforts to blame this on the Nazis.

 

You're callous tone you've chosen with respect to the Holocaust is noted. 

As is your grammar error. On a more serious note, the Soviets murdered more people than did the Nazis. Assuming each victim was equally human, the sum of Soviet destruction was worse.

Do you even know what happened at Dresden?  Even money says you dust of that moldy old myth about USAAF Mustangs strafing innocent civilians on the roads leading out of Dresden...

Yes, I know what happened at Dresden. British and American planes destroyed a city of no military value. According to the official police report, Germany lost as many people in that bombing than the U.S. lost in the entire Vietnam War. But the official police report could not take into account bodies buried under rubble, nor those who would later die due to homelessness in the February snow. The actual civilian death toll may have been several times as high as the American death toll during Vietnam. As for the U.S. planes strafing innocent civilians: I've seen video footage of deeply emotional Dresden survivors describing this strafing. I'm curious as to why you think I should write these people off as liars.

 

But whether the strafing took place or not, the Dresden bombing was clearly a war crime as defined by the Geneva convention, and an act of genocide against the people of Germany.

 

You're the one that said 100k years of racial isolation caused speciation in Homo Sapiens.

Wrong. I never wrote anything which would imply the world's races are different species; nor have I ever felt the world's races are different species.

[KurtGodel77]

Kurt, Click Here

 

Now, realize that he was suggesting that sometimes they have to work out their own problems (in a way the World deem's acceptable) for it to actually be anything other then a bandaid.

 

Thats it.

 

And you say that I'm the one who makes something out of nothing.  Seesh.

746318[/snapback]

Several points:

1) I already know what the word hyperbole means.

2) You, not Monkeyface, are the one stipulating that the problems need to be worked out in a way the world deems acceptable.

3) Genocide against the people of Lebanon has been done before, under almost exactly the same circumstances as at present. This happened while the rest of the world was standing by and letting them work their problems out.

4) Some people are capable of genocide, or else it wouldn't happen. Monkeyface certainly seems more heartless/capable of committing genocide than anyone else on these boards. Some Lebanese harmed Jews, so Monkeyface endorsed genocide (or something very close to genocide) as an appropriate response. That goes a long way towards explaining why he apparently doesn't have a problem with the atrocities the Allies inflicted upon the Germans during and after WWII.

[Chilly]

Several points:

1) I already know what the word hyperbole means.

 

Fooled me.

 

2) You, not Monkeyface, are the one stipulating that the problems need to be worked out in a way the world deems acceptable.

 

His quote compares it to raising Children and Cats. You have to sometimes let them solve their own issues.

 

When you raise Children and Cats, they have to solve their own issues in a way in which the world (in this case the legal guardians) find acceptable.

 

3) Genocide against the people of Lebanon has been done before, under almost exactly the same circumstances as at present.  This happened while the rest of the world was standing by and letting them work their problems out.

 

So what? This doesn't mean that CTM is saying genocide is good. All it means is that the world tried it once and the world !@#$ed up, therefore it didn't work.

 

My point is that you are taking a quote out of context and making it something that its not. Even if he had endorsed genocide at a later point in time, it still doesn't mean that he was doing so with this quote.

 

4) Some people are capable of genocide, or else it wouldn't happen.  Monkeyface certainly seems more heartless/capable of committing genocide than anyone else on these boards.  Some Lebanese harmed Jews, so Monkeyface endorsed genocide (or something very close to genocide) as an appropriate response.  That goes a long way towards explaining why he apparently doesn't have a problem with the atrocities the Allies inflicted upon the Germans during and after WWII.

746369[/snapback]

 

Not really.

 

VABills, JSP, all the others that say "Just blow up the whole damn Middle East" seem to be a lot more capable of genocide.

[Wacka]

Geek fest!!!!!

 

Don't you two realize you are arguing about something that maybe 10 other people in the world know or understand?

[Chilly]

Geek fest!!!!!

 

Don't you two realize you are arguing about something that maybe 10 other people in the world know or understand?

746386[/snapback]

 

Do you really think that if only 12 people in the entire world understood this, that two of them would be posting on a Buffalo Bills Football Internet Forum about it?

 

[KRC]

Do you really think that if only 12 people in the entire world understood this, that two of them would be posting on a Buffalo Bills Football Internet Forum about it?

 

746390[/snapback]

 

...but, hey...how many Bills message boards can boast that they have a pedantic, supercilious anal orifice and a Nazi geek it out over history.

[KurtGodel77]

My point is that you are taking a quote out of context and making it something that its not. 

Had I written "genocide works"--in any context at all--Monkeyface would have used it to support his claims about me being some kind of Nazi. But that doesn't give me the right to act in the same way. Below is his quote in its entirety:

Oh yeah, of course. An international organization devoted to forcing people to get along against their better judgement was bound to stick their nose in and act counter to 5000 years of factual human history demonstrating that, not to be too blunt, genocide works.

 

Okay, maybe that's a little over the top. But anyone who's raised cats and small children knows that sometimes you just have to let them resolve their own issues with each other. But nation-states are somehow "different".

I interpreted the whole "a little over the top" remark to mean Monkeyface didn't want to quite come out and endorse genocide. But that doesn't mean he wasn't thinking it. And even with the slight pullback, he was still endorsing something awfully close to genocide.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

My "story" is simple and unchanging: FDR was deeply pro-Soviet.  You often remember my posts incorrectly, which makes it seem to you like I keep changing my mind.

 

Your "proof" of it keeps changing. Now you seem to be saying he was "deeply pro-Soviet" because of Versailles. But then, he did permit the unfettered remilitarization of Germany, which led to Eastern European aggression by the Soviets, so maybe he was.

 

Dead wrong.  You're really wrong here.  I feel myself drowning in the ocean of your wrongness. 

 

Don't take my word for it, look it up. You'll find that when you look historical facts up, they turn out to be different than when you make them up.

 

Wrong.  I wrote that many Soviet neighbors were forbidden to have credible militaries.  You "refuted" this by talking about a different Soviet neighbor which did have a credibly military.

 

Specifically, you wrote that many Balkan remnants of the Austro-Hungarian empire were not allowed, as Germany wasn't. Soviet neighbors, however, were Finland - which was permitted a military, and successfully fought Soviet aggression, Poland - which was permitted a military, and successfully fought Soviet aggression, and Romania - which was permitted a military (hell, they were one of the victors in WWI). None of the countries you mentioned are actually Soviet neighbors.

 

You're obviously unfamilar with the Soviet execution of the Polish officer corps, and their efforts to blame this on the Nazis.

 

Don't forget to mention the forced deportation of Poles to the gulags, too, and the various other pogroms. That leaves only...oh...maybe five million other Poles unaccounted for. I suppose they just moved to Cheektowaga; the Germans couldn't have killed them, they were nowhere NEAR as cruel to the Poles as the Soviets.

 

As is your grammar error.    On a more serious note, the Soviets murdered more people than did the Nazis.  Assuming each victim was equally human, the sum of Soviet destruction was worse.

 

Well, after 100k years of racial isolation and speciation, I suppose you can make the perfectly valid assumption that not all victims were equal. Not that I believe that...but hey, it's your racial theories...

 

Yes, I know what happened at Dresden.  British and American planes destroyed a city of no military value.  According to the official police report, Germany lost as many people in that bombing than the U.S. lost in the entire Vietnam War.  But the official police report could not take into account bodies buried under rubble, nor those who would later die due to homelessness in the February snow.  The actual civilian death toll may have been several times as high as the American death toll during Vietnam.

 

Olay, so you don't know sh-- about Dresden either. Big surprise.

 

As for the U.S. planes strafing innocent civilians: I've seen video footage of deeply emotional Dresden survivors describing this strafing.  I'm curious as to why you think I should write these people off as liars.

 

I'm curious as to why you'd think eyewitness reports are so completely reliable, when ever single remotely intelligent person on the planet is aware that's not the case. But I expect nothing less from you; your horizons tend to get pretty limited when they're confined by the lining of your own rectum.

 

But whether the strafing took place or not, the Dresden bombing was clearly a war crime as defined by the Geneva convention, and an act of genocide against the people of Germany.

 

Would you like me to list all the major war industries in Dresden? All the legitimate military targets? Or would you like to look them up yourself? Or, most likely, would you just like to pretend there were none, so that your own little idiot world-view remains undisturbed?

 

Wrong.  I never wrote anything which would imply the world's races are different species; nor have I ever felt the world's races are different species.

746331[/snapback]

 

No, you said that because of racial isolation over 100k years, Homo Sapiens has undergone speciation. Of course, Homo Sapiens has not experienced "racial isolation" over the past 100k years, and has not undergone any process of speciation. But other than that, your statement was completely correct.