Ukraine Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Over, the ideologies themselves differ drastically, i.e. Nazism and Communism or Nationalism and Anarchism.

---

I don't think it is true of nazism and communism. Both ideologies promise heaven on Earth and both claim it is not yet attainable because some people are in the way. The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.
And anarchism, in my view, stands somewhat apart, since it is grounded not on the concept of a promise, but on denial (any authority).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"I gave reasons why I believe my (literal) reading of Putin's words is correct." Yes you did, but it is like the believers picking and choosing within the Holly Book what goes with their beliefs, forgetting the second part of the sentence.

---

I hope it is not equating Putin's produce with the Scripture.
But as I have once remarked, Bible is the most ungrateful source if it comes to proving or disproving anything. Too controversial and full of mutually excluding premises.

Yo, Brits, in search of allies Putin goes south:
http://au.ibtimes.com/putin-signs-an...-cm7hM.twitter

Says a lot about Argentina.

Well, good to see that the button to start WW3 is now in the hands of argentina.

Seriously though, I see this as the final nail in the coffin for the idea of an argentine falklands; the USA might be able to get away with not helping its ally against a mere latin american junta noone likes, but the russian bear? No, this seals it.

I've never been to Argentina. The way that certain Argentinians treated the Top Gear guys and the way the other Argentinians treated Cal Crutchlow are very different. Makes me wonder if Argentina would start it with the Falklands.

Journalism now is indeed a joke.

A bombastic title: Putin Signs Anti-UK Military Pact With Argentina

... and then, in the article itself: Russia supports Argentina's striving for direct talks with Britain to achieve prompt resolution to the Malvinas Islands dispute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Journalism now is indeed a joke.

A bombastic title: Putin Signs Anti-UK Military Pact With Argentina

... and then, in the article itself: Russia supports Argentina's striving for direct talks with Britain to achieve prompt resolution to the Malvinas Islands dispute.

---

...ah, I slipped, now I feel dumb, must do better.

It's actually somewhat concerning how ready I was to believe it that.

This is unfortunately Argentina's "discussion" on the issue of Falklands from my point of view.

Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas, imperialistic scum!"
Britain: "Mh, our colonies have the right to self-determination, what do you say, Falklanders?"
Falkland: "No thanks, we like being British, Britannia rules the seas!"
Britain: "Well, this is awkward, don't want to be an independent country?"
Falkland: "Nope, we like it here."
Britain: "Sorry Argentina, we had a referendum, they overly whelmingly want to remain British. I tell you what though, we will make them independent in all but name, we will work on some co-operation plans about the area, and lets things carry on well."
Argentina: "FFFFF-U Britainnia! Imperialistic scum bag, you own part of Argentina, it is OURS, I tell you, OURS!!!"
Britain: "Err... calm down a little there, the people there have decided..."
Argentina: "THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS! Of course Brits will want to be Brits! It is Argentina land!"
*Argentina invades the Falklands, then gets its ass handed to it by Margaret Thatcher*
Britain: "Seriously... what the f- was that?, Argentina?"
Argentina: "Islas Malvinas is OURS!!! I will even write it in Constitution, we will scorn you forever, Britannia! Empire Scum!!"
*Now to the Modern Day*
Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas!! Scumbag"
Britain: "No"
Argentina: "Such imperialistic scumbag, you won't even discuss the issue! the issue where we say we want it and you give it us!"

I don't really support the Argentine position (actually, to be perfectly frank, I don't care. Arguing about a few pieces of rock in the middle of nowhere... Is there something I'm missing? Gold? Oil?).

My point is that there's nothing about anti-UK military pack, or even a concerted diplomatic effort about it in the treaty or even in the article. It's just cheap sensationalism. It's too stupid to be even called propaganda.

"Supporting dialogue" is the oldest trick in the book when you want to not say anything. Like literally every country in the world supports direct dialogue of Belgrade and Pristina. Those who recognized Kosovo and those who didn't it. You can't go wrong with "supporting dialogue".

“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation… To make a Nazi a killer, he just has to be a good Nazi. To make a Communist a killer, you have to pervert the ideology in the name of realism.

“I hope it is not equating Putin's produce with the Scripture.” :laugh4:l, no…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I don't really support the Argentine position (actually, to be perfectly frank, I don't care. Arguing about a few pieces of rock in the middle of nowhere... Is there something I'm missing? Gold? Oil?).

---

It was originally a distraction by Argentina's Military Junta due to really crap economical issues at home. The whole "let's distract the population and invade" somewhere mechanism. Since Falklands as you adequately described it as being "pieces of rock in the middle of no where" they thought it would be successful and the British would simply surrender the territory.

Well, they were wrong. Whilst as you described, no one really cared about the 'pieces of rock in middle of no where' except for the population of those rocks who are British. Britain tried to pawn them off, obviously not wanting the diplomatic trouble, but as they were British citizens, with a say, they voted to remain part of Britain. So like it or not, Argentina just attacked British citizens (though I believe it is dual-citizenship, afterall, they are independent all but in name, basically).

This is obviously made the Falklands a manner of pride and principle, and stopped a lot of the proposed 'co-operative agreements' with Argentina, especially as Argentina are steadfast in their position of "this is ours". This is also complicated that to spite the Falklands, they made it part of their constitution that the President has to press the claims of Argentina over the Falkland islands. This is why you keep hearing about it regularly, because the President has to do it by law.

Though, as for Oil, a few years ago, they did discover some large oil fields near the Falklands which haven't been touched yet and this has given a bigger imperative to press that claim.

If the Argentinians acquire them in the future, I imagine their reaction would be something akin to...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoy9PUR--E4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

This is unfortunately Argentina's "discussion" on the issue of Falklands from my point of view.

Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas, imperialistic scum!"
Britain: "Mh, our colonies have the right to self-determination, what do you say, Falklanders?"
Falkland: "No thanks, we like being British, Britannia rules the seas!"
Britain: "Well, this is awkward, don't want to be an independent country?"
Falkland: "Nope, we like it here."
Britain: "Sorry Argentina, we had a referendum, they overly whelmingly want to remain British. I tell you what though, we will make them independent in all but name, we will work on some co-operation plans about the area, and lets things carry on well."
Argentina: "FFFFF-U Britainnia! Imperialistic scum bag, you own part of Argentina, it is OURS, I tell you, OURS!!!"
Britain: "Err... calm down a little there, the people there have decided..."
Argentina: "THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS! Of course Brits will want to be Brits! It is Argentina land!"
*Argentina invades the Falklands, then gets its ass handed to it by Margaret Thatcher*
Britain: "Seriously... what the f- was that?, Argentina?"
Argentina: "Islas Malvinas is OURS!!! I will even write it in Constitution, we will scorn you forever, Britannia! Empire Scum!!"
*Now to the Modern Day*
Argentina: "Give us Islas Malvinas!! Scumbag"
Britain: "No"
Argentina: "Such imperialistic scumbag, you won't even discuss the issue! the issue where we say we want it and you give it us!"

---

This is all very witty, but it's a pity we don't have an Argentinian here to voice his take on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

My point is that there's nothing about anti-UK military pack, or even a concerted diplomatic effort about it in the treaty or even in the article. It's just cheap sensationalism. It's too stupid to be even called propaganda.

---

I think one should not focus here on the propagandistic character of the article (which is obvious). It is the sense of it which is important.
Being largely ostracized elsewhere, Putin tries to find others who hold themselves wronged by G 7 members and pretend to form new alliances to see if that can make them nervous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation… To make a Nazi a killer, he just has to be a good Nazi. To make a Communist a killer, you have to pervert the ideology in the name of realism.

---

Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions.
But whatever ideology might be behind some practice, it is the latter that is to be evaluated in the first place.

The SWIFT offensive has started?
http://rt.com/business/253649-crimea...blocked-swift/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

This is all very witty, but it's a pity we don't have an Argentinian here to voice his take on the issue.

---

Probably say "That is stereotypical of a British imperialist scumbag."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Probably say "That is stereotypical of a British imperialist scumbag."

---

Unlike you, I don't humiliate people just for fun. To be impartial one should hear both sides of the story. Am I asking too much?

No, but...

Let's face it, it's a couple of pieces of rock that Britain got during it's imperialist past and doesn't have any justification for keeping, but likewise, Argentina doesn't have any justification for demanding. They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them.

In those situations, I tend to support what those who live there actually want, and they seem to want to stay with Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No, but...

Let's face it, it's a couple of pieces of rock that Britain got during it's imperialist past and doesn't have any justification for keeping, but likewise, Argentina doesn't have any justification for demanding. They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them.

In those situations, I tend to support what those who live there actually want, and they seem to want to stay with Britain.

---

Did they ask local penguins and gannets? Their votes could have drastically changed the outcome of the referendum.

"They were uninhabited when Europeans discovered them." And not forgetting that the Spanish name of Malvinas comes from the French Malouines, coming itself from the inhabitants of St Malo, harbour from where the 1st fishermen (les malouins) coming from this town, having semi-permanent shelter for the fishing season... I don't remember really who lost it to whom and when, but it was a succession of owners, all becoming owner by war and conquest.
And to be fair, the inhabitants want to be English, and I don't see real reason why the island should be Argentinian, even I do not approve the vocabulary used by the English to speak about the Argentinians...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And not forgetting that the Spanish name of Malvinas comes from the French Malouines, coming itself from the inhabitants of St Malo, harbour from where the 1st fishermen (les malouins) coming from this town, having semi-permanent shelter for the fishing season...

---

So France should announce them "historically French territory" send someone under the nickname of Le Streloque to raise hell there.

"Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions." Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf.

---

Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

---

Have you read either? They're not even remotely similar.

"Have you read either?" :laugh4: he obviously didn't. The Communist Manifesto is not a political platform, but a discussion about Communism...

It is April 30th, 2015.

Is Putin still a fascist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It is April 30th, 2015.

Is Putin still a fascist?

---

I think he is misunderstood. He just wants to be loved, like all proper cartoon super villains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Have you read either?" :laugh4: he obviously didn't. The Communist Manifesto is not a political platform, but a discussion about Communism...

---

Again jumping to conclusions :no:
I have STUDIED "Manifesto" at school and University.
The basic tenets I referred to:

Quote:

---

Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority living under the thumb of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the "common ruin of the contending classes".
The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves accumulating capital. However by doing so the bourgeoisie "are its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

"Proletarians and Communists", the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists' party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world's proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities.

---

These basic tenets were further elaborated and developed by Lenin and Stalin, so while communism can't claim that it has a single "Bible" (as nazism does) still its doctrines are expounded in a number of theoretical treatises.
It is true, though, I didn't read Mein Kampf. I know only general ideas expressed in it. Yet, the points I mentioned about communist ideology (exporting socialist revolution, superiority of one social group, annihilation of class enemies and their minions) may be said to be common for both sources and consequently ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

He just wants to be loved, like all proper cartoon super villains.

---

Loved or made love to?

“Yet, the points I mentioned about communist ideology (exporting socialist revolution, superiority of one social group, annihilation of class enemies and their minions) may be said to be common for both sources and consequently ideologies.”
Nope, it as comparing salad and carrot under the pretext there are both vegetables. Err, I think carrot is…
Well, export of socialist revolution has been in debate, Stalin vs Lenin, or Trotsky, but was not part of the ideology.
At that time, they were quite busy in keeping the Revolution alive.
The first official Communist Part is around the 1920, when the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, I think (too lazy to check). Not that the URSS didn’t took any advantage in its Foreign Policy to grab territories (i.e. Poland & Finland or after WW2) but unlike Nazism or Colonialism it is not a corner stone. You can’t be a Nazi without conquest, racism and brutality. You can be Communist. Communist ideology does not propose the superiority of one social group (this is more the Aristocratic/Conservative/Tories approach). It recognises a struggle between the (roughly) two classes and describe that the oppression couldn’t stop without struggle. As much I remember, the ideology never mentioned annihilation of class enemies, but the infamous dictatorship of the proletariat which will end when everyone will be equal… Yeah, I know… But there is no appeal to genocide as the Nazi ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Well, export of socialist revolution has been in debate, Stalin vs Lenin, or Trotsky, but was not part of the ideology.

---

You make claims which must be grouded on your more than cursory awareness of the communist ideology in its enirety. The latter is not limited to the Manifesto. It is the first (AFAIK), but not the last expounding (and interpretation) of it. As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own. So the idea of exporting revolution was introduced later into the ideology.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pea.../08/export.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The first official Communist Part is around the 1920.

---

In name, perhaps. But not in essence. Bosheviks were steering by the ideology since about 1900 (too lazy to find the exact date) when their party was called RSDRP (b).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

You can’t be a Nazi without conquest, racism and brutality.

---

Le Pen manages to thrive without the first and, by and large, without the third. There are civilized nazis now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Communist ideology does not propose the superiority of one social group (this is more the Aristocratic/Conservative/Tories approach). It recognises a struggle between the (roughly) two classes and describe that the oppression couldn’t stop without struggle. As much I remember, the ideology never mentioned annihilation of class enemies, but the infamous dictatorship of the proletariat which will end when everyone will be equal…
Yeah, I know… But there is no appeal to genocide as the Nazi ideology.

---

To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.
https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...20class&f=true
Page 116, the second sentence in the second paragraph, starting with "The bourgeoisie wouldbe removed as a class".
And other quotations by the classics:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/communists.html

“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. We could say easily that the Crusades (or the genocide/ethnocide in South America) were in the New Testament under the same description.

“In name, perhaps. But not in essence. Bosheviks were steering by the ideology since about 1900 (too lazy to find the exact date) when their party was called RSDRP (b).” In France, the separation between Socialism and Communist was in the Congrès of Tours in Dec 1920:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tours_Congress

“To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.” Not really the same thing no? The Aristocratic Class is forbidden in USA, doesn’t means they kill the UK Royal Family as soon they put a foot of the grounds of USA.
Nobility was abolished by Louis the XVI ins a (vain) attempt to stop the Revolution, and he didn’t kill the Aristocrats…

"The bourgeoisie would be removed as a class". See above. “As a Class”

And the 2nd link is even funnier (especially when you see the names of the authors of the sentences:laugh4:). I can probably (and probably some did) the same with all Regime and ideologies.
In the name of Christianity: Arnaul Amalric: “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His”
Capitalism: See all declaration about law f Market for Irish, Indian and others famines, or the right for nations to have colonies… Too long to do it myself, sorry, I started a new Inquisition character…
Islam: read the book…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.

---

I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“To genocide - no. To classocide - yes.” Not really the same thing no? The Aristocratic Class is forbidden in USA, doesn’t means they kill the UK Royal Family as soon they put a foot of the grounds of USA.
Nobility was abolished by Louis the XVI ins a (vain) attempt to stop the Revolution, and he didn’t kill the Aristocrats…

---

You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.

“I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.” No you didn’t. I said there is no equivalent Communists My Kampf. You created a link to a document written in 1848 as Political Platform for Parties that really started to exist in the 1920’s (kind of 60/70 years after mind you).
As the similarities, I really don’t see them, except artificially created, as all opponents (ill-informed ones) always do. You can probably find similarity between My Kampf and the Scouts as they are both like fire camps, boys and girls enjoying sports and outdoor activities…

“You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? “ Where are these things you describe are contain in the Communist Manifesto?
It is just stating the evidence which is when a Class (or workers) are not anymore needed or are obsolete, they vanished. When I was a kid we had a blacksmith and a wooden shoes maker in the village. They disappeared when I was a teenager… No confiscation, no murder or others hardship measures, just the fact they were not anymore needed/adequate. So, in an all-equal society, the class “Bourgeoisie” having finished in it social role would just vanish.

“Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.” Don’t know for USA (but I give you that the Class “Slave-owner” did disappear violently), in France it went like this: The “Etats Généraux” were made of three Chambers divided following St Augustin principles: The Nobility (the warriors), the Clergy (the Priests) and the Tiers Etat (the one who feed the 2 others). The French Assembly went for a representation by elections, so the 2 others classes did vanish.
If the King Louis the XVI would be smarter, it should have stay there.
Due to his lack of political finesse; the Kingdom was abolished and the 1st Republic proclaimed (well, not really but de facto), and all the civil wars and foreign wars that ended not in 1815, but for real at the proclamation of the III Republic (1871).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“The difference is in those people - nazism blames (certain) nations, communism - (certain) social classes.” That is true but not totally true. One ideology in based on racism and murder, conquest of vital space, and the idea that one race is superior, when the other is for equality and all men born equal. I speak of the ideology, not the implementation…

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions." Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“As I have said, others of more practical set of mind developed the ideas of the Manifesto or introduced their own.” Agree. However, your first proposition was to equal My Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“I equalled or pointed to similar tenets in the ideologies, each of which has its cornerstone books as a starting point.” No you didn’t.

---

You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.
As you can see, we started our discussion with IDEOLOGIES and only three posts later you brought up Mein Kampf. Thus comparing fundamental (foundational) treatises was done for highlighting/specifying the comparison of ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

You can probably find similarity between My Kampf and the Scouts as they are both like fire camps, boys and girls enjoying sports and outdoor activities…

---

Flawed comparison. You can't compare a book and an organization. You may do it with Hitlerjugend and Scouts, if you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“You don't see the difference between "abolish/forbid" and "removing as a class by political and socio-economic measures: confiscating their assests, putting them to socially-useful work, and applying punishment, up to the death penalty"? “ Where are these things you describe are contain in the Communist Manifesto?

---

As I have shown, they are basic tenets of communist IDEOLOGY. And we are still comparing ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

It is just stating the evidence which is when a Class (or workers) are not anymore needed or are obsolete, they vanished. When I was a kid we had a blacksmith and a wooden shoes maker in the village. They disappeared when I was a teenager… No confiscation, no murder or others hardship measures, just the fact they were not anymore needed/adequate. So, in an all-equal society, the class “Bourgeoisie” having finished in it social role would just vanish.

---

Once again: communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin) insists on annihilation of a social class by violent methods. It was not just "wait until they become extinct in the process of evolution" or "bereave them of their title and they are not nobility any more" (as your examples tend to show), but "confiscate their assests, put them to socially-useful work, and apply punishment, up to the death penalty". If it is not a call to eradicating a whole strata of population, try to replace "bourgeoisie" with "jews" and see if it works out to be a kind of ?-cide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Did the USA and France use the same "measures"? In my opinion, they point to classocide.” Don’t know for USA (but I give you that the Class “Slave-owner” did disappear violently), in France it went like this: The “Etats Généraux” were made of three Chambers divided following St Augustin principles: The Nobility (the warriors), the Clergy (the Priests) and the Tiers Etat (the one who feed the 2 others). The French Assembly went for a representation by elections, so the 2 others classes did vanish.
If the King Louis the XVI would be smarter, it should have stay there.
Due to his lack of political finesse; the Kingdom was abolished and the 1st Republic proclaimed (well, not really but de facto), and all the civil wars and foreign wars that ended not in 1815, but for real at the proclamation of the III Republic (1871).

---

Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued. A group of people was stopped to be CALLED in a certain way, but the PEOPLE didn't disappear. Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.

“As I have shown” You have shown nothing. I can give you it is difficult as there is no “Communist” My Kampf. You just can describe various episodes of the USRR and others in order to sustain your claim.

“communist IDEOLOGY” You are just plain wrong. What the Communist Manifesto is describing is a consequence, not a tool.

“Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.” Your readings of it (and Lenin and Stalin), not what the Communist Manifesto tells.

“communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin)” Communist Ideology is not define by the two you named, who were as well dictators. So what is part of Dictatorship and Ideology? In Nazism, you don’t have the same problem as Nazism is Dictatorship.

“Flawed comparison. You can't compare a book and an organization. You may do it with Hitlerjugend and Scouts, if you wish.” Well, it is what you do, I just return the favour. You pretend because superficial similarities that Communist Ideology and Nazi Ideology are similar (I know, it is not what you are actually writing, but deeper we go in this exchange, it looks like it is the direction you are aiming to). So I choose an example to show you can do this to each organisation.

“You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.” It is because you are a little bit chaotic, so I have to remind you of what you wrote. "Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions."
My answer to this was: “Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).”
Note that you did cut the part on others violent and aggressive ideologies having much more in common with Nazism than Communism.
You still fail to define the Communist Ideology, as obviously to retract rightly from the idea of the Communist Manifesto could play this role. Just in France, the Anarchist movement produced a lot of literature and ideas about what Communism is/was about (i.e. Manifesto of the Equals (1796)). And the same can be said for the Socialist Movement and indeed the Communist Movement.

"Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued" Really? I just gave you an exemple when one, Nobility, just did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“As I have shown” You have shown nothing. I can give you it is difficult as there is no “Communist” My Kampf. You just can describe various episodes of the USRR and others in order to sustain your claim.

“communist IDEOLOGY” You are just plain wrong. What the Communist Manifesto is describing is a consequence, not a tool.

“Communists wanted to send both the NAME and the PEOPLE into oblivion.” Your readings of it (and Lenin and Stalin), not what the Communist Manifesto tells.

“communist ideology (as expounded by Lenin and Stalin)” Communist Ideology is not define by the two you named, who were as well dictators. So what is part of Dictatorship and Ideology? In Nazism, you don’t have the same problem as Nazism is Dictatorship.

“You really should do something with the memory or refer to the earlier posts.” It is because you are a little bit chaotic, so I have to remind you of what you wrote. "Ideology of Communism has some similar features:exporting socialist revolution (which can be equated to expanding the ideoligically friendly space), superiority of one social group (proletariat), annihilation of class enemies and their minions."
My answer to this was: “Nope. There is no equivalent in Communist Ideology of My Kampf. Nazism is quite unique in this (well, excepted of course the main 3 monotheistic religions, and probably the polytheistic as well, but I am not sure of the last ones).”
Note that you did cut the part on others violent and aggressive ideologies having much more in common with Nazism than Communism.
You still fail to define the Communist Ideology, as obviously to retract rightly from the idea of the Communist Manifesto could play this role. Just in France, the Anarchist movement produced a lot of literature and ideas about what Communism is/was about (i.e. Manifesto of the Equals (1796)). And the same can be said for the Socialist Movement and indeed the Communist Movement.

---

Either you don't really understand (as you like to say) or you choose to pretend to.
My final word in this argument:
We started to compare IDEOLOGIES. Ideologies ARE NOT EXHAUSTED/LIMITED by the premises in the books we referred to since they (ideologies) encompass MORE IDEAS than those forwarded in the books (at least this is true for communism, since I don't know much of other basic treatises of nazism if there are any). The ideological background of communism (expounded in works by Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin and perhaps others) contains at least some similar tenets (those that ultimately lead to gruesome consequences) to those expressed in Mein Kampf. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Classes can't disappear after a decree was issued" Really? I just gave you an exemple when one, Nobility, just did.

---

So all the nobles were killed? No. They STOPPED BEING CALLED nobles, but they lived on (at least those that were not executed). Just like slave-owners in America in 1865 stopped owning slaves, but lived on.
In the USSR the communist party (guiding itself by the basic tenets forwarded by Lenin and Stalin) started annihilating PEOPLE who were considered bourgeoisie. For example, during collectivisation rich peasants (Russian kulaki) who were included into "petty bourgeoisie" were exiled to Siberia with their families just because they were richer than others. If they expressed dissatisfaction they were proclaimed "people's enemies who resisted the dictatorship of the proletariat" and consequently executed. Those that obeyed very often died on the way or starved to death at their destination. It is very vividly described in Sholokhov's Virgin Soil Upturned and this is what I termed classocide.
Later this tactics (under similar accusation) was repeated to attempt genocide of Tatars or Volga Germans.

Speaking of nazis and communists. Apparently I didn't watch the British documentary too carefully. But it appears that when I claimed that Germans in 1939-1940 used Murmansk airdfield to deploy their planes later used in bombing Norway it wasn't a wild shot. I was mistaken in the kind of troops and used rented facilities. It was a naval base near Murmansk that was placed at Gemany's disposal and evidently was instrumenal in conquering Norway.

https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...rmansk&f=false

http://www.uboat.net/forums/read.php...,28676,quote=1

So basically I was right about close military cooperation between nazis and communists at the outset of WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

So basically I was right about close military cooperation between nazis and communists at the outset of WWII.

---

No you were not.

Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports. The particular importance of that particular port was that it was small and remote enough and that German ships could dock there and there was little chance they would spied upon or their ships sabotaged. They could have just as well docked in Murmansk or Leningrad...

That is not the proof of close military cooperation. The fact that Graf Spee docked in Montevideo doesn't mean the Germany and Uruguay had close military cooperation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No you were not.

Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports. The particular importance of that particular port was that it was small and remote enough and that German ships could dock there and there was little chance they would spied upon or their ships sabotaged. They could have just as well docked in Murmansk or Leningrad...

That is not the proof of close military cooperation. The fact that Graf Spee docked in Montevideo doesn't mean the Germany and Uruguay had close military cooperation.

---

What about all the Red Army officers trained in Germany who were interred upon their return to the Motherland upon commencement of hostilities, or Hitler and Stalin's partitioning of Poland?

also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect, the Nobility still exist in France and, as far as I'm aware have furnished the majority of French Presidents.

Huh, I didnt know that.

I mean, I knew that the nobility didnt die out in teh revolution and there was a king or two after bonaparte, but I didnt think france still honoured thier titles.

"also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect": Nope. https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/367/
It is not a legal entity.

"but I didnt think france still honoured thier titles." France doesn't.

"I'm aware have furnished the majority of French Presidents." :laugh4:

Yes, you still have category claiming being part of Nobility, but it is not legal. I can write on my visit card if I had one I am the Count of what ever, no one can challenge or start legal proceeding as I am entitle to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

What about all the Red Army officers trained in Germany who were interred upon their return to the Motherland upon commencement of hostilities

---

All serious military cooperation between Soviet Union and Germany died when Hitler came into power. There were some leftovers, like there usually are, military observers and such... but nothing beyond that. Also, Hitler actually was trying to increase the level of cooperation, to keep the ruse before invading, while Stalin believed him, to an extent that he won't open another front until England's been defeated.

Prior to Hitler coming to power, there was indeed serious military cooperation. Guderian saw first massive tank maneuvers in Soviet Union.

Quote:

---

, or Hitler and Stalin's partitioning of Poland?

---

It is no secret that Stalin wanted to reclaim territories Russian Empire lost after ww1, but cooperation pact with Hitler was a way to buy time to prepare for the eventual war, which everybody knew was coming, even when they signed the NAP.

Worth noting is that NAP was signed after France and UK rebuffed Soviet overtures for an alliance against Nazi Germany. Litvinov was sacked as foreign minister, Molotov appointed when Stalin figured out that western allies weren't ready to commit to fight together against Hitler. He decided that a NAP with Germany would give SU more time to prepare for the inevitable war.

It's really a case of revisionism, where the goal is to equate Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. Most people unfortunately don't know enough to really discern the meaning of such statements -> there were German ships in Soviet Unions! Yeah, there were German ships in other neutral countries. There were Soviet officers in Germany! Yes, there were French and British officers also. There were Japanese officers in USA. It doesn't really mean anything, but, unless one is knowledgeable enough, it's a good propaganda effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Soviets were neutral in 1939-1940 and their ports were open. German (and French or British) ships could enter those ports.

---

If you carefully read the linked part of the book (https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...rmansk&f=false) you will note that it was not just "entering a port" but using it as a base (Basis Nord) and even enlisting the help of Soviet ice-breakers to evade British navy. For which later Raeder personally thanked Kuznetsov.
But the Basis Nord issue wasn't the only evidence of the cooperation (collaboration?) in question. I have already said about guiding German bombers unloading above Poland, intense conatcts between Gestapo and NKVD, parade in Brest and so on.

http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/the-...communist-chic

Quote:

---

The film shows footage of Russian and German military officers toasting each other, exchanging salutes at parties, and marching together in parades celebrating the conquest of Poland. When German bombers attacked Poland, radio towers in Minsk guided them; likewise, the Russian port of Murmansk served as the staging ground for the German invasion of Norway. The Soviet Union quickly became the largest supplier of resources for the Nazi war machine.

---

So the cooperation was more than what you would like to present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"also, I'd like to point out that Brenus is incorrect":
It is not a legal entity.
Yes, you still have category claiming being part of Nobility, but it is not legal. I can write on my visit card if I had one I am the Count of what ever, no one can challenge or start legal proceeding as I am entitle to do so.

---

Illegal doesn't mean non-existent. Some/many Mexican immigrants in the USA are illegal. Do they not exist?
Social stratum can't be cancelled by laws. It is there as long as any representatives of it are alive and consider themselves as such. And it doesn't depend on the documents they have. There are still people who trace their origin from nobility of the past and thus hold themselves part of it even in such countries where decrees cancelling it were issued and/or modern state system has no place for them (Russia, Japan, Italy). Or some families of New England.
You might as well issue a decree that there is no such nationality as, for example, Jews, Tatars or Gypsies. Does it mean they will disappear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

If you carefully read the linked part of the book (https://books.google.com.ua/books?id...rmansk&f=false) you will note that it was not just "entering a port" but using it as a base (Basis Nord) and even enlisting the help of Soviet ice-breakers to evade British navy.

---

It is quite silly to assume that Soviet had a fully functioning, staffed port, that was encased in ice, and that icebreakers were sitting idly by, only activated to clear the ice for the Germans.

Like I said, if one doesn't approach such "reports" with a critical mind, he or she may end up with a distorted picture.

Quote:

---

But the Basis Nord issue wasn't the only evidence of the cooperation (collaboration?) in question. I have already said about guiding German bombers unloading above Poland, intense conatcts between Gestapo and NKVD, parade in Brest and so on.

http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/the-...communist-chic

So the cooperation was more than what you would like to present.

---

Any cooperation between Soviets and the Germans was (on the Soviet side) a desire to placate Hitler and buy time for modernization of industry and army for the inevitable war between the two countries. After being ignored by the most of Europe in a desire to create a common front against Hitler, they bought time by striking a deal, which included supplying raw materials but very little military cooperation.

The amount of trust was such that Stalin made an urgent order to move into Poland after seeing how fast Wehrmacht was advancing, to ensure Germans don't come into control of eastern Poland, which was supposed to go to the Soviets. It was such a dash that Soviet units moved with little fuel and little to no ammunition, just to get to the demarcation line before Germans.

As I've said - revisionism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Like I said, if one doesn't approach such "reports" with a critical mind, he or she may end up with a distorted picture.

---

If one approaches such reports with a distorted mind, I'm afraid the picture will be distorted as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The amount of trust was such that Stalin made an urgent order to move into Poland after seeing how fast Wehrmacht was advancing, to ensure Germans don't come into control of eastern Poland, which was supposed to go to the Soviets. It was such a dash that Soviet units moved with little fuel and little to no ammunition, just to get to the demarcation line before Germans.

---

You seem to know Stalin's mind better than anyone else. Let's remember that these are only your own assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

As I've said - revisionism.

---

Everything that ruins a deeply entrenched picture is bound to be called a revisionism. Any new discovered fact is disregarded and proclaimed revisionism just because it interferes with the comfortable and traditionally-accepted "truth". This is the way with science in general and the historic science in particular. Russia is especially good at the latter. And evidently, not only Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

You seem to know Stalin's mind better than anyone else. Let's remember that these are only your own assumptions.

---

Soviet political and military leadership was taken by surprise by the speed of the German advance. They frantically mobilized border units, often with little or no supplies and equipment to rush to demarcation line. That is not an assumption, that is a fact.

Quote:

---

Everything that ruins a deeply entrenched picture is bound to be called a revisionism. Any new discovered fact is disregarded and proclaimed revisionism just because it interferes with the comfortable and traditionally-accepted "truth". This is the way with science in general and the historic science in particular. Russia is especially good at the latter. And evidently, not only Russia.

---

What you call a "fact" is actually an insignificant piece of information given out of context. It is bombastic enough, if one doesn't understand how it works in reality.

Historical facts have been well documented and there is nothing to warrant revisionism. Unfortunately, journalists and politicians aren't bound by high scientific standards, so they are free to spout nonsense that will increase their sales and rating, or achieve a particular goal.

“Illegal doesn't mean non-existent. Some/many Mexican immigrants in the USA are illegal. Do they not exist?
Social stratum can't be cancelled by laws. It is there as long as any representatives of it are alive and consider themselves as such. And it doesn't depend on the documents they have. There are still people who trace their origin from nobility of the past and thus hold themselves part of it even in such countries where decrees cancelling it were issued and/or modern state system has no place for them (Russia, Japan, Italy). Or some families of New England.
You might as well issue a decree that there is no such nationality as, for example, Jews, Tatars or Gypsies. Does it mean they will disappear?”
Oh, a lot of things added-up here.
The Nobility was a class when its members had a political/social use. This use disappeared slowly and this fact was matched by the disappearance from the political landscape. The class Nobility vanished by a change of Constitution but not only. No body decide to create the Bourgeoisie but the Class appeared as the system of production and the representation of the world changed.
The warriors were not any more required as the lowest coward could kill the bravest knight from behind his barricade with a musket. Evolution, pure Darwinian evolution… For the same reason, difficult to be a King from Divine Will when less and less people believe in God(s)ess(es).
And yes, you are right, so murderers, thieves and drugs dealers are as well illegal and don’t mean they do not exist. That doesn’t make them a Class in Marxist definition/acceptation sense.
We are not speaking a Social Stratum; we are speaking of Classes, as define by St Augustine or Marx. The old religious model collapse thanks to the Industrial Revolutions(s) and some evolved in high Bourgeoisie as the English Gentry, the others, trying to clench to their Privileges just died, from some of them literally. However, even in England, the Class Nobility ceased in its function so died as Class.
And no, self-determination is not what you are. They can trace whatever they want, and think whatever they want, that doesn’t make Nobility a Class, just a delusion, especially when you study History and learn how Nobility was created... My county of birth was annexed by Louis XV le Bien-Aimé because the biggest provider of “false” Nobility and money. You paid and ding, you were elected Member of the Parliament (Official post leading to Nobility) for 3 days, then you bought a piece of land, you took the mane of the piece of land, and dong, 10 years after you printed a nice visit card with blazon, 2 wolves with a piece if Oak, there you were a Noble. With careful planning, you could by a Castle from a ruined older noble, married your son to his daughter, than would speed up the process... But I digressed.
As the last part of your intervention, as much as I know, Jew is not a nationality but a religion. Not sure that Gypsy is a nationality either. Perhaps Tatars are. And the all three are not Classes but a social/tribal/human link. So comparing them with a legal status or an obsolete occupation/work is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

We are not speaking a Social Stratum; we are speaking of Classes, as define by St Augustine or Marx.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class

Quote:

---

Social class (or simply "class"), as in a class society, is a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories, the most common being the upper, middle, and lower classes.

---

But to cut short a possible terminological debate involving quotations from Augustine, Marx, and (not unlikely) Mein Kampf:
whatever you understand as a "class", violent measures aimed at obliterating a large group of people (bourgeoisie) was what Lenin (and later Stalin) advocated and even found neccessary to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

They can trace whatever they want, and think whatever they want, that doesn’t make Nobility a Class, just a delusion, especially when you study History and learn how Nobility was created...

---

Yet such delusions are not punishable by death or confiscation of assets, are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

as much as I know, Jew is not a nationality but a religion.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

Quote:

---

The Jews, also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious and ethno-cultural group originating from the Israelites of the Ancient Near East.

Historically, Jews have descended mostly from the tribes of Judah and Simeon, and partially from the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, who had all together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah.

Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Not sure that Gypsy is a nationality either.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

Quote:

---

The Romani (also spelled Romany), or Roma, are a traditionally itinerant ethnicity living mostly in Europe and the Americas. Ultimately of Northern Indian origin, the Romani are widely known among English-speaking people by the exonym "Gypsies" (or Gipsies).

---

Can it be that Brenus may fail to know anything or, God forbid, make a miastake? No no, I must be dreaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And the all three are not Classes but a social/tribal/human link. So comparing them with a legal status or an obsolete occupation/work is absurd.

---

I was talking not of any statuses, but of the ideologically substantiated appeal (with further implementation) to put an end to a large stratum of people, be it a social class (in any meaning) or nationality/ethnicity. In my view, both are crimes one of which was commited by nazis, and both (e.g. a crackdown on kulaki and Tatars) by communists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

What you call a "fact" is actually an insignificant piece of information given out of context. It is bombastic enough, if one doesn't understand how it works in reality.

Historical facts have been well documented and there is nothing to warrant revisionism. Unfortunately, journalists and politicians aren't bound by high scientific standards, so they are free to spout nonsense that will increase their sales and rating, or achieve a particular goal.

---

Historical facts are there OK, but their interpretation may be different. Some people call them "insignificant pieces of information", others try to see a system behind them. Each approach is arbitrary so categories "right" or "wrong" don't work here.
"Revisionism" and "collaboration" are very good stigmata to brand your opponents. They don't need substantiation. One just pastes the label on the forehead of the opponent and says: "How can we have any discussion with revisionists who glorify collaborators?" No further arguments are paid attention to. This tactics works especially well with those who see a black-and-white image of real life events.

For example, it has always been (and has even become more fiercely done) an approach practised in the USSR and now Russia to brand those who sport red-black flags or Bandera's portraits as people who try to glorify traitors and collaborators (and their symbols) and thus involved into revisionism. Such adepts choose to disregard the fact that modern Russia uses official flags of Russian liberation Army headed by Vlasov as their state flag and navy flag.
http://info-news.eu/russian-armies-of-nazi-germany/
Why don't they advocate forbidding them either?
They also choose to disregard the fact that German army held special operations against UPA (which was mentioned at Nuremberg trial) and that the leader of the movement (the ultimate villain) was arrested by nazis on July 5 1941 and spent next three years first in prison in Berlin and later in the concentration camp. Since these facts don't fit the officially blessed tradition it is better not to see them and proclaim any attempts to pay attention to them revisionism.

You are so devoted to seeing events in their broad context. Let's do it on the example of Organization of Ukrainian nationalists (OUN). Their ultimate goal was to win independence for Ukraine - from Poland and the USSR. Who could give them hope of re-drawing European borders between the world wars? Evidently not the winners of WWI, who were quite satisfied with the map they formated in 1918-1920. So OUN turned to the only powerful driving force that yearned for destroying the stability of the after-Versailles Europe. Thus, OUN and nazis became situational allies. When it was evident that nazis wouldn't tolerate any independent country out of their control the former allies became enemies.
Such stories of fluctuating political stance could be found in many European countries in those times, so stigmatizing should either cease altogether or be ubiquitous and comprehensive and no one should be exempt just because it may look to someone an attempt at revisionism. The same as facts pointing to close German-Soviet cooperation on the eve of WWII, which you consider "insignificant pieces of information".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Soviet political and military leadership was taken by surprise by the speed of the German advance. They frantically mobilized border units, often with little or no supplies and equipment to rush to demarcation line. That is not an assumption, that is a fact.

---

Yet, Ribbentrop and Molotov signed a protocol, so the Soviet party must have been aware of what ought to happen and have taken the neccessary steps, especially if there was such a distrust as you claim. You make it sound like Stalin was an agent of events carried on by the turbulent stream who didn't participate in decision making and was only reacting (and saving what he could) to those insidious and cunning nazis doing their dirty deeds on their own. Wait, it sounds somehow familiar.... Got it! Replace Stalin with Putin and we may return the derailed thread to your vision of the Ukrainian crisis. And if anyone still wants more insights on it:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/a...ue#pageIndex_2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

You make it sound like Stalin was an agent of events carried on by the turbulent stream who didn't participate in decision making and was only reacting (and saving what he could) to those insidious and cunning nazis doing their dirty deeds on their own. Wait, it sounds somehow familiar.... Got it!

---

I am not sure what you are arguing. The Red Army was in no shape to combat the Wehrmacht, and Stalin was fully aware of this. He was trying to place the Soviet Union in a more favorable position for when Hitler inevitably gave the order to attack.

Quote:

---

On June 26, 1940, a law was enacted extending the Soviet workday from seven to eight hours, and to seven days per week. Disciplinary action for tardiness or slothfulness in the factories was imposed on the work force. These are measures normally introduced during wartime.

---

Why do you think this occurred?

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...lwarplans.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I am not sure what you are arguing.

---

I don't care - tip you're it.

You take over, I can't do it anymore.

Hats off to Brenus, his perseverance is legendary, but then again, he has seen war and marriage.

I think Gilrandir as funny. He has no clue, no real knowledge more than what he picks in internet in the most revisionist sites and think it is enough. Each time he goes for vocabulary explanation to cover the gaps, he make me laugh. The "well, I was wrong about this, but I am still right as Hitler really said in was for peace, I was right to say Hitler was a peaceful man" kind of argument.
It is a tactic he uses a lot.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I am not sure what you are arguing. The Red Army was in no shape to combat the Wehrmacht, and Stalin was fully aware of this. He was trying to place the Soviet Union in a more favorable position for when Hitler inevitably gave the order to attack.

Why do you think this occurred?

---

Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler in late August 1939. The decree you refer to dates back to spring 1940. If Stalin was so fully aware of his weaknesses, why wait for so long to try to correct something? Why didn't he do it soon after his saw inadequacies of his military in the Winter war?
I think he was having in view not the vague purpose "to keep up with the Jonses" (or at least not primarily this purpose). He was being engaged in occupation of the Baltic states which put a strain on economy and armed forces. So it WAS a war time, as your source states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I think Gilrandir as funny. He has no clue, no real knowledge more than what he picks in internet in the most revisionist sites and think it is enough.

---

It is good to be able to have at least a piece of mind now and then from a sage who doesn't know anything about Jews and Gypsies, but whose wisdom allows him to grade the sites he dislikes from most revisionist through mildly revisionist down to slightly revisionist.
I'm sure it is the same wisdom which allows him to say "you're hopeless" to the opponent and call it a day when he sees he has lost the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler in late August 1939. The decree you refer to dates back to spring 1940. If Stalin was so fully aware of his weaknesses, why wait for so long to try to correct something?

---

I recommend that you read the material provided for you. Your English is excellent, so I know you can read it.

Same article (http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...lwarplans.html).

Quote:

---

On August 23, 1939, the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was in Moscow. He and Molotov signed the historic German-Soviet non-aggression pact. The following evening, Stalin hosted prominent members of the Soviet Political Bureau in his apartment. Among the dinner guests were Molotov, Voroshilov, Lavrenti P. Beria and Nikita Khrushchev.

Stalin explained, as Khrushchev later recalled, that he considered war with Germany unavoidable, but had momentarily tricked Hitler and bought time.

---

Quote:

---

Inside the USSR, an intensive armaments production program was under way. During 1938, it had increased by 39 percent, compared to 13 percent in civil industry. Emphasis was placed on armor, development of artillery and aeronautics. In September 1939 the USSR defense committee contracted the construction of nine aircraft production plants, and seven more to manufacture aircraft engines.

This was supplemented by the conversion to fabrication of aviation components of a number of consumer goods factories.

---

Quote:

---

The war in Europe did not develop as Stalin had predicted. In the spring of 1940, the British withdrew from the continent. The German army conquered France in June without suffering appreciable losses. The ground war was wrapping up without England and Germany becoming "sufficiently worn down." Khrushchev later described how Stalin became unusually agitated following the Franco-German cease-fire in June 1940. He cursed the French for letting themselves be beaten and the English for fleeing "as fast as their legs could carry them.

---

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

Here is a more scholarly report detailing military outputs before and during the war:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...8postprint.pdf

Here is a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=NH...Banner&f=false

Check the first four or five pages of "4. The Shock of Surprise Attack". Basically, it states that Stalin was aware of the attack, but misjudged the timing badly.

Don't speak of facts with with Gilrandir. He will explain later that well, he was right.
"I'm sure it is the same wisdom which allows him to say "you're hopeless" to the opponent and call it a day when he sees he has lost the argument." The first part explains the second that you as usual misunderstand.

"sage who doesn't know anything about Jews and Gypsies" Why a sage should know everything? I like when you try irony.
Then what did I miss for Jews and Gypsies? Jew is a religious and Gypsies perhaps an ethnicity but certainly not a Nation in modern acceptation? So share your ignorance once again, I sure you will find something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

as always, everything is England and France's fault.

---

Unless it's something good, in which case everyone magically forgets we had anything to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I recommend that you read the material provided for you. Your English is excellent, so I know you can read it.

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

Here is a more scholarly report detailing military outputs before and during the war:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...8postprint.pdf

Here is a book: https://books.google.com/books?id=NH...Banner&f=false

Check the first four or five pages of "4. The Shock of Surprise Attack". Basically, it states that Stalin was aware of the attack, but misjudged the timing badly.

---

Thank you for the sources. I cursorily looked them through, yet I didn't find anything new that I hadn't known before. Indeed I studied it all at school and university. And I don't see how it gainsays my view that Stalin and Hitler started WWII by partitioning Poland and that until June 1941 they stayed in close cooperation. I heard (don't know if this information is well grounded) that Britain contemplated bombing Baku oil extraction and refinery facilities to prevent gasoline suppies from the USSR to Germany.
http://orientalreview.org/2010/04/22...o-attack-ussr/
And I know that the USSR kept sending wheat to Germany up to June 1941.
The fact that Stalin didn't expect the assault on June 22 and didn't believe any reports confirming that was bored into the conciousness of all Soviet schollchildren.
Don't see why is it all qualified as revisionism. I was trying to show that myths and facts don't coincide. One of such myths is that any fighting side during WWII was allied either with Germany or with the Western allies and/or the USSR. There were numerous armies fighting against both. Another myth is that Russia could have won the war without any help - either from the West or from other Soviet republics. The third one is that all Russians fought against nazis, while other nations (Ukrainians, Tatars, Chechens) had a significant percentage of traitors. This myth chooses to disregard the existence of Vlasov's army (numbering from a million to 1,5 million). So every nation had traitors or those stigmatized as traitors. Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Wa...81st_French%29).
So the bottomline I tried to make:
it is time to stop arguing who was more traitor/collaborator than others and reconcile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I would like to add that, as always, everything is England and France's fault.

---

You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Die_for_Danzig%3F
I hope I didn't link to any revisionist site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Then what did I miss for Jews and Gypsies? Jew is a religious

---

Jews is a nationality, judaism is their religion. Not all Jews are Judaists. In Ukraine, for example, there are many who were baptized into Orthodox christianity. Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

and Gypsies perhaps an ethnicity but certainly not a Nation in modern acceptation?

---

I like this demure "perhaps". You blame other in disregarding the facts, but ... kettle and pot.
But whatever term (nation, nationality or ethnicity) you may choose, belonging to it is not a reason to be termimated, is it?

Meanwhile, back in DPR. Zakharchenko presides at the parade.
http://empr.media/video/conflict-zon...ade-in-donetsk
Yeltsin said in such cases that he hadn't slept the previous night and was deadly tired the following morning.
And in Russia:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0NV06Q20150510
I spotted strange discrepancies between English- and Russian-language versions of this article. The former claims that "some soldiers" are quitting the army, the latter the "whole groups of soldiers" do.
http://ru.reuters.com/article/topNew...150510?sp=true
Any explanation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Jews is a nationality, judaism is their religion. Not all Jews are Judaists. In Ukraine, for example, there are many who were baptized into Orthodox christianity. Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".

---

:inquisitive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

“You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?” Lol. A slogan in a pro-nazi French Newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at
And once again, you didn’t read the document you provided, which illustrate perfectly well how you deal with facts and arguments: You read the tittle only.

“Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division” Deeply aware, however, the 33 SS Division Charlemagne’s members are considered as traitors, as the Milice, LVF or the Strumbrigade Frankenreich in France. No unit in the French Army wear their symbol, and they not celebrated as heroes in newspapers today. In some books written by Extreme-Right authors, perhaps (I read them all when I was young!!!!)…

Now, I agree on your statement about every country having traitors. However, in Ukraine today, as in Latvia before, they are probably heroes. Ukraine chooses its heroes: Criminals who slaughtered Jews (not only) under the Nazi uniforms and symbols, symbols they are proud to wear today.

“But whatever term (nation, nationality or ethnicity) you may choose, belonging to it is not a reason to be termimated, is it?” Yeah, but we were speaking of political Classes, not of Nations/ nationalities and the political transformation illustrated during the French Revolution but not only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And I know that the USSR kept sending wheat to Germany up to June 1941.

---

And oil and other materials/supplies. Doesn't change the fact it was done to buy time.

Quote:

---

Don't see why is it all qualified as revisionism. I was trying to show that myths and facts don't coincide. One of such myths is that any fighting side during WWII was allied either with Germany or with the Western allies and/or the USSR.

---

It's not myth, it's a fact. That doesn't mean some of them weren't traitors and/murderers. Banderovci fought intermittently against Germans, but their primary enemies were Poles and Soviets, and in later stages of the war, they fought together with Wehrmacht to stop Soviet offensives. They were also responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles in eastern Ukraine, and wanted to create an ethnically clean Ukraine.

It's disgusting such people are venerated as heroes.

Quote:

---

Another myth is that Russia could have won the war without any help - either from the West or from other Soviet republics.

---

"Soviets" refers to all nationalities within Soviet Union and includes Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Tatars, Georgians and others. It is a well known fact that Red Army wasn't just Russian, and I take it most people here know that were many additional nationalities fighting on the side of the Red Army who weren't in the USSR, like Poles and Mongols...

Quote:

---

The third one is that all Russians fought against nazis, while other nations (Ukrainians, Tatars, Chechens) had a significant percentage of traitors. This myth chooses to disregard the existence of Vlasov's army (numbering from a million to 1,5 million).
So every nation had traitors or those stigmatized as traitors. Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division

---

Vlassov's army never numbered 1 to 1.5 million men, I have no idea where you got that figure from. It was used as a propaganda tool by Nazis and basically only existed on paper, because Hitler didn't trust them. Himmler persuaded Hitler to allow him to arm several Russian division in 1944. By 1945, only one was formed, and it's first major combat involvement was in Prague, when they promptly decide to help Czechoslovakians and fought against the Germans for liberation of Prague. After the war, Vlassov was hanged.

There were individual Russian soldiers and small units who fought within the SS, just like there were other nationalities.

It is not so much an issue whether there were, but how they are treated today. If they are honoured as heroes instead of ignored as traitors, something is very wrong.

Quote:

---

So the bottomline I tried to make:
it is time to stop arguing who was more traitor/collaborator than others and reconcile.

---

If that means respecting pro-nazi organizations, you can count most of the civilized world out. Maybe you should try it in Germany. Tell them there is no difference between Weimar Republic and Nazis. I'm sure they won't have any objection.

In case it wasn't clear, I think your bottom line is a sad, disgusting attempt to exonerate nazis and nazi wannabees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“You mean "Why die for Danzig" attitude?” Lol. A slogan in a pro-nazi French Newspaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_D%C3%A9at
And once again, you didn’t read the document you provided, which illustrate perfectly well how you deal with facts and arguments: You read the tittle only.

---

How long it must be before you learn
1) not to jump to conclusions and
2) read carefully into the message.
I spoke of the ATTITUDE epitomized by the statement. It was evident in Europe before Danzig and didn't refer to Danzig only. It was adopted after the Anschluss and transpired vividly during the occupation of the Sudets and later the whole of Czechoslovakia. The same attitude as today's "why go to war for Ukraine".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Perhaps others are aware of Chrlemagne SS division” Deeply aware, however, the 33 SS Division Charlemagne’s members are considered as traitors, as the Milice, LVF or the Strumbrigade Frankenreich in France. No unit in the French Army wear their symbol, and they not celebrated as heroes in newspapers today. In some books written by Extreme-Right authors, perhaps (I read them all when I was young!!!!)…

Now, I agree on your statement about every country having traitors. However, in Ukraine today, as in Latvia before, they are probably heroes. Ukraine chooses its heroes: Criminals who slaughtered Jews (not only) under the Nazi uniforms and symbols, symbols they are proud to wear today.

---

If this philippic refers to UPA, it is mostly not true: they had their own their uniform and are not proclaimed guilty at Nuremberg. It is true, though, that they participated in slaughters of Poles ans (perhaps) Jews.
If you are speaking about SS division Galichyna, it is also not true, as they are not venerated as heroes and their (nazi) uniforms are not worn by any Ukrainian army detachments. And, by the way, UPA, AFAIK, didn't approve of its creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

And oil and other materials/supplies. Doesn't change the fact it was done to buy time.

---

This is your own interpretation of the fact. Trading (especially strategic goods) is the worst thing to buy time with if one knows (as you claim Stalin did) that some day you will have to fight your trade partner.
But this trade was only a part of multi-faceted cooperation that I spoke of, so I don't buy the buying time explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It's not myth, it's a fact. That doesn't mean some of them weren't traitors and/murderers.

---

In Lithuania, Forest brothers fought against the Soviets, yet they were not allied with the Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_partisans
History is never black-and-white, as you try to paint it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Banderovci fought intermittently against Germans, but their primary enemies were Poles and Soviets, and in later stages of the war, they fought together with Wehrmacht to stop Soviet offensives.

---

This is again your assumption (on the primary targets of UPA). I would say that they equally targeted anyone they considered an enemy in their fight for independent Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

They were also responsible for ethnic cleansing of Poles in eastern Ukraine, and wanted to create an ethnically clean Ukraine.

---

It is the first time I hear of any Poles living in eastern Ukraine and any ethnic cleansings of them. If I were Brenus I would say something like "You see, he has no clue of geography".
As for massacres, cruelty and violence, it was the time abundant in those. The husband of my grandmother's sister told me a lot how "kind and gentle" were Soviet troops to the civilians in Germany. And also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paw%C5%82okoma_massacre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It's disgusting such people are venerated as heroes.

---

As I have said, history is never black-and-white. For example, Bohdan Khmelnitsky is considered to be the greatest hetman in Ukrainian history, the founder of the first independent Ukrainian state and his monuments are everywhere. Pro-Russians venerate him because he united Ukraine with Russia, pro-Ukrainians venerate him because he fought against the Polish. Yet people choose to forget that this struggle for independence involved massacres of the Poles and Jews, and those who opposed him massacred Ukrainians most gladly. Is he to be venerated? I'm sure that in the history of every country there are plenty of such figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

"Soviets" refers to all nationalities within Soviet Union and includes Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Tatars, Georgians and others. It is a well known fact that Red Army wasn't just Russian, and I take it most people here know that were many additional nationalities fighting on the side of the Red Army who weren't in the USSR, like Poles and Mongols...

---

Tell it to Putin, this is one of his favorite myths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3dS02yonos
Is it a revisionism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Vlassov's army never numbered 1 to 1.5 million men, I have no idea where you got that figure from.

---

I didn't phrase it correctly: the whole number of Russians fighting on the nazi side was about that:
http://bintel.com.ua/en/article/kem-...-antifashisty/

Quote:

---

As part of SS, RONA was suppressing the Warsaw uprising in August-September 1944. RONA soldiers were engaged in looting, exhibiting a bestial cruelty, for what Kaminsky was arrested by Germans and shot. In 1944, RONA was included into Hitler's army of collaborator Vlasov.

Apart from RONA in the service of the German fascists were other Russian formations: “Russian National People's Army” (RNNA), Brigade “Druzhina”, Cossack units which received after 3 April 1943 their general name “Russian Liberation Army” (ROA) under command of General Vlasov. At the beginning of its formation, Vlasov's army numbered about 45 thousand people, And his Air Force — 5 thousand military servicemen. In total, according to different estimates, during World War II on the side of Nazi Germany fought from 1 million to 1.7 million Russians, among them were Russians of the Crimea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

If that means respecting pro-nazi organizations, you can count most of the civilized world out. Maybe you should try it in Germany.

---

Or in Croatia. Or in Lithuania. Or in Latvia. Evidenlty, some countries are at odds with you on who to consider a (pro) nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

In case it wasn't clear, I think your bottom line is a sad, disgusting attempt to exonerate nazis and nazi wannabees.

---

I guess, it is me who wasn't clear or else you didn't read my post carefully.
I spoke of stopping charging each other with COLLABORATIONISM and TREASON, since collaborators and (ideals of the free world)'s traitors were ALL, starting from Chamberlain and Stalin (and other leaders) down to numerous petty ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

:inquisitive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

---

Er... Maybe by "Jews" as a nationality/culture he means Ashkenazi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Er... Maybe by "Jews" as a nationality/culture he means Ashkenazi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

Quote:

---

Who is a Jew?

According to traditional Jewish Law, a Jew is anyone who was either born of a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in accordance with Jewish Law. American Reform Judaism and British Liberal Judaism accept the child of one Jewish parent (father or mother) as Jewish if the parents raise the child with a Jewish identity. All mainstream forms of Judaism today are open to sincere converts, although conversion has traditionally been discouraged since the time of the Talmud. The conversion process is evaluated by an authority, and the convert is examined on his or her sincerity and knowledge. Converts are called "ben Abraham" or "bat Abraham", (son or daughter of Abraham). Conversions have on occasion been overturned. In 2008, Israel's highest religious court invalidated the conversion of 40,000 Jews, mostly from Russian immigrant families, even though they had been approved by an Orthodox rabbi.

Traditional Judaism maintains that a Jew, whether by birth or conversion, is a Jew forever. Thus a Jew who claims to be an atheist or converts to another religion is still considered by traditional Judaism to be Jewish. According to some sources, the Reform movement has maintained that a Jew who has converted to another religion is no longer a Jew, and the Israeli Government has also taken that stance after Supreme Court cases and statutes. However, the Reform movement has indicated that this is not so cut and dried, and different situations call for consideration and differing actions. For example, Jews who have converted under duress may be permitted to return to Judaism "without any action on their part but their desire to rejoin the Jewish community" and "A proselyte who has become an apostate remains, nevertheless, a Jew". (p. 100-106).

The question of what determines Jewish identity in the State of Israel was given new impetus when, in the 1950s, David Ben-Gurion requested opinions on mihu Yehudi ("who is a Jew") from Jewish religious authorities and intellectuals worldwide in order to settle citizenship questions. This is still not settled, and occasionally resurfaces in Israeli politics.

---

Back to Ukraine:
http://uatoday.tv/politics/donetsk-m...ne-426575.html

https://news.pn/en/RussiaInvadedUkraine/133059

It's May 12th and Vladimir Putin is still a fascist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

:inquisitive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

---

In the UK Antisemitism is considered racism, not religious prejudice. Germany may have developed a different view post-holocaust but, in the West, Jews have historically been seen as racially apart, a view supported by the practice of intermarriage for reasons of religion. That's not to say that everybody who has a Jewish nose (like a Roman nose it really is a thing) has grandparents who were practicing Jews, but still.

"Jew" is best considered as denoting ethnic membership or identity. It has more to do with upbringing and perceived historical grounding than religious practice (of course hardline Jewish conservatives may privately disagree, though they're happy to import anyone they can into Israel).

Note that the majority of Iberia has some Semitic ancestry. Many other Europeans can claim descent from Christianized Jews. Probably most Muslim Palestinians had Jewish ancestors along the way.

I mean, check out this guy, looks like a total Hebe:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNptfUIiSHo

As for Ukrainian Jews, well, some of them are in my extended family. Heck, one of my grandmothers was a Ukrainian Jew (though she relocated to Belarus after the war).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In the UK Antisemitism is considered racism, not religious prejudice. Germany may have developed a different view post-holocaust but, in the West, Jews have historically been seen as racially apart, a view supported by the practice of intermarriage for reasons of religion. That's not to say that everybody who has a Jewish nose (like a Roman nose it really is a thing) has grandparents who were practicing Jews, but still.

---

Eh, the post I replied to began with "Jews is a nationality", that is weird because Israeli is a nationality and there are jews with German, American, Russian and many other nationalities.
To top it off the post ended by saying that "Thus their nationality and confession are not covered by the term "Jew".", which is not only a contradiction to how he began two sentences earlier but also a bit strange since the term jew often does cover religion, although certainly not exclusively. Wikipedia calls it "ethno-religious" and "ethno-cultural" which seems quite accurate to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Eh, the post I replied to began with "Jews is a nationality", that is weird because Israeli is a nationality and there are jews with German, American, Russian and many other nationalities.

---

I would say that Israeli is citizenship (Israeli is a citizen of Israel). And they can be of different ethnicity - Jewish, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian...

"I would say that Israeli is citizenship (Israeli is a citizen of Israel). And they can be of different ethnicity - Jewish, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian..." Always difficult to define all these concepts: My Israeli friend is an atheist Jew. His nationality is Israeli (and french), his culture Jew, religion none. The problem is in this list there is a mixture of "arab" (Culture?) Nationality (Ukrainian) and religion (Jewish).
In the frame work you propose my friend could be European French Israeli.

Like a lot of words Jew has multiple meanings with individuals displaying some or all characteristics.

You can be Jewish ethnically ie parent(s) are Jewish
Jewish religion
Jewish culturally

I have a friend who identifies himself as ethnically and culturally Jewish. But he sees religion as a crutch and is an atheist.

Helps to understand that religion and culture and interwined and with expectations that you only marry within a group an ethnic group will form over time, and more specialized groupings as the strictures on who you marry. There are some Jewish communities who have genetic diseases, that are very rare in the outside world, commonly occurring within their communities. Much like Royalty...

http://maidantranslations.com/2015/0...freesavchenko/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ch-more-crimea
Ran into this article. Nothing new or surprising if it weren't for the date. It seems that Novorossia was on Russia's agenda long before March 2014. So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could".

I was actually looking for an English-language article which quotes Merkel ruling out Ukraine's EU membership. Yet I found that there are actually 3 types of headlines summarizing that speech:
a) "Ukraine crisis makes Eastern Partnership more important"
b) "No Russian return to G7 without progress in Eastern Ukraine"
c) "Merkel rules our Ukraine becoming a EU member"
https://www.google.ru/search?client=...nel=fs&tbm=nws

I actually only wanted to congratulate her on finally being honest, in contrast to our American friends who continue their empty promises of NATO Ukraine's ascension. I believe it is high time for clear communication with the Ukrainian people: Europe is not willing to spend the billions necessary to prevent an economic meltdown, as those funds would end up in corrupt officials' pockets anyway. We are also not willing to deliver substantial military aid and no matter how much we deliver, Russia would always keep the upper hand anyway (as she prove in Ilovaysk and Debalzeve).

Regarding the Banderovzy: As much as I see the need for Ukraine's patriots to build their own, non-soviet narrative of WW2, they should not choose the UPA. It has indeed carried out ethnic cleanses against Polish. Glorifying the UPA is not only a provocation for Russia and significant parts of the Ukrainian population, it can potentially alienate Ukraine's closest ally: Poland. The UPA was a highly dubious organization, sometimes collaborating with the Nazis, sometimes fighting them and there are way too much dark grey tones in its history to glorify it as unanimously as they do in Lviv (I remember street names like Vulitsa Heroiv UPA and Vulitsa Stepanu Banderu as well a shiny marble monument in their honour).
That being said, I am evenly disgusted by the way they frame it here in Russia, though. What they tell you here is that it was as essentially some Ukrainian branch of the Nazi party/SS, which enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis. What is even worse is how they without thinking for a second simply assume, that Western Ukrainians hold the same views as their ancestors. As if I would be a Nazi ready to commit another Holocaust, just because I am German.


Heck, those comments always become longer in the end than I originally intended.

"So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could"." :laugh4: The New Republic's Ukraine Newsletter. is your very independent source. Can you link directly with www.ukraine.gov.prop (for propaganda) (or equivalent) please, that will cut a lot of time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32840502

Russian soldiers have apparently confessed being, well, Russian soldiers, to OBSE monitors.

Let's link the actual source:
http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/159296
I highly recommend all of you to read the OSCE reports, as they are the only really reliable source in the area. This way you don't have to be afraid of the filter .See for instance, how the Merkel speech I quoted above was framed in three very different ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

I
The UPA was a highly dubious organization, sometimes collaborating with the Nazis, sometimes fighting them and there are way too much dark grey tones in its history to glorify it as unanimously...

---

Replace "UPA" with "the Red Army" and it will hold true as well.
My point was that EVERYBODY eventually fighting against Nazis could at some moment between 1938 and 1945 be called a collaborator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"So much for "Putin was only reacting and saving what he could"." :laugh4: The New Republic's Ukraine Newsletter. is your very independent source. Can you link directly with www.ukraine.gov.prop (for propaganda) (or equivalent) please, that will cut a lot of time

---

So you mean that Edward Luttwak (the author of the article posted at this despicable site) on March 9 2014 didn't say anything about Novorossia project being in preparation in Russia? The reputation of the site (which you don't like) makes Edward Luttwak a liar of a fictitious character?