A somber remembrance.
Putin and Merkel will be there. US is sending National Security Adviser James Jones? That choice seems a bit odd. I do wish the US saw fit to send at least a different position, perhaps a high level State dept, preferably Sec State Hillary Clinton or her deputy, or the VP Biden.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32637688/ns/world_news-europe/
Friends, foes mark WWII's beginning in Poland
Leaders of Germany, Russia join tributes to millions killed in 6-year conflict
Quote from: KRonn on September 01, 2009, 09:42:04 AM
A somber remembrance.
Putin and Merkel will be there. US is sending National Security Adviser James Jones? That choice seems a bit odd. I do wish the US saw fit to send at least a different position, perhaps a high level State dept, preferably Sec State Hillary Clinton or her deputy, or the VP Biden.
Right isn't it Biden's job to attend crap like this?
Hopefully Merkel rumbled across the border in a restored Pzkw II & Putin in a BT-7 :)
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 09:44:07 AM
Hopefully Merkel rumbled across the border in a restored Pzkw II & Putin in a BT-7 :)
*joke about the Poles charging tanks with cavalry*
*savage beat down by fanatical internet legion of nationalist Poles follows*
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 09:44:07 AM
Hopefully Merkel rumbled across the border in a restored Pzkw II & Putin in a BT-7 :)
Your side lost WWII. :nelson:
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 09:43:44 AM
Right isn't it Biden's job to attend crap like this?
Maybe he's got real work to do, like Cheney did.
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 10:03:38 AM
Your side lost WWII. :nelson:
Your side lost in 1848 :punk:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 10:08:22 AM
Maybe he's got real work to do, like Cheney did.
I elected him to go abroad and make humorous gaffes, not do work. :(
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:30:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 10:08:22 AM
Maybe he's got real work to do, like Cheney did.
I elected him to go abroad and make humorous gaffes, not do work. :(
Same here. In fact, if I knew he'd do work, I would've voted for someone else.
I'll pop the champagne today and celebrate the dismemberment of Poland and Hans Frank's administration.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 01, 2009, 12:02:26 PM
I'll pop the champagne today and celebrate the dismemberment of Poland and Hans Frank's administration.
You, sir, are worse than Satan dressed up like Hitler.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 12:07:31 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 01, 2009, 12:02:26 PM
I'll pop the champagne today and celebrate the dismemberment of Poland and Hans Frank's administration.
You, sir, are worse than Satan dressed up like Hitler.
I'm a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling.
It had to happen. On one of the news reports I watched, the announcer told of this date in history. And at one point, of course, he had to bring up how the Poles attacked tanks with cavalry. <_<
Quote from: DGuller on September 01, 2009, 10:32:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:30:48 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 10:08:22 AM
Maybe he's got real work to do, like Cheney did.
I elected him to go abroad and make humorous gaffes, not do work. :(
Same here. In fact, if I knew he'd do work, I would've voted for someone else.
I've often thought that Biden offers an incredible benefit as VP. When he says something about foreign policy I imagine the Embassies and Chancelleries of the world go into overdrive trying to work out whether it's the administration floating something, a Freudian slip representing real policy or just Biden being Biden. It must be useful to have someone like that around.
I thought Obama had sold Poland out to Russia? It would thus be inappropriate for a high-ranking American to show up in Poland. Low-ranking people are sent to low-ranking countries.
Quote from: KRonn on September 01, 2009, 07:17:57 PM
It had to happen. On one of the news reports I watched, the announcer told of this date in history. And at one point, of course, he had to bring up how the Poles attacked tanks with cavalry. <_<
Did they really?
Marty celebrates by going down on some Kraut wurst.
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2009, 07:47:13 PM
I thought Obama had sold Poland out to Russia? It would thus be inappropriate for a high-ranking American to show up in Poland. Low-ranking people are sent to low-ranking countries.
Whoa, I hadn't thought of that possibility.
That's cold.
I bet that's the way the russian are going to see it. I hope Obama knows what he is doing. Obama do know what happened on 01 SEP 39, right?
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 09:46:21 AM
*joke about the Poles charging tanks with cavalry*
*savage beat down by fanatical internet legion of nationalist Poles follows*
On this forum? :unsure:
Quote from: Sahib on September 01, 2009, 09:41:12 PM
On this forum? :unsure:
No just doing some Paradox forum re-enactments. Man those were some of my favorite threads: the Poles frothing over WWII threads.
Quote from: KRonn on September 01, 2009, 07:17:57 PM
It had to happen. On one of the news reports I watched, the announcer told of this date in history. And at one point, of course, he had to bring up how the Poles attacked tanks with cavalry. <_<
:lol:
Somewhere a Polish nationalist died a little inside.
Quote from: KRonn on September 01, 2009, 07:17:57 PM
It had to happen. On one of the news reports I watched, the announcer told of this date in history. And at one point, of course, he had to bring up how the Poles attacked tanks with cavalry. <_<
Looks like Goebbels won after all.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 01, 2009, 10:12:37 PM
Looks like Goebbels won after all.
You can blame the Cold War for the persistence of this story. Before the Poles emerged from the iron curtain to be flabbergasted by the story we all just assumed it was true.
Quote from: KRonn on September 01, 2009, 07:17:57 PM
It had to happen. On one of the news reports I watched, the announcer told of this date in history. And at one point, of course, he had to bring up how the Poles attacked tanks with cavalry. <_<
:punk:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 01, 2009, 07:39:33 PM
I've often thought that Biden offers an incredible benefit as VP. When he says something about foreign policy I imagine the Embassies and Chancelleries of the world go into overdrive trying to work out whether it's the administration floating something, a Freudian slip representing real policy or just Biden being Biden. It must be useful to have someone like that around.
Unfortunately, the problem is that while Obama shares a lot of traits with God, immortality is not one of them.
Bullshit. I was replying to this thread and my windows closed.
A sign.
Or maybe i am too drunk. I can't tell, with Iron Maiden playing on my Itunes.
Only The Good Die Young 4:42 Iron Maiden Piece Of Mind 1983 Other 9 9/2/2009 12:51 AM 4
Quote from: KRonn on September 01, 2009, 09:42:04 AM
A somber remembrance.
Putin and Merkel will be there. US is sending National Security Adviser James Jones? That choice seems a bit odd. I do wish the US saw fit to send at least a different position, perhaps a high level State dept, preferably Sec State Hillary Clinton or her deputy, or the VP Biden.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32637688/ns/world_news-europe/
Friends, foes mark WWII's beginning in Poland
Leaders of Germany, Russia join tributes to millions killed in 6-year conflict
For the record the low level of the US representation has been duly noted here and taken offense about. Not that I care. :P
Oh, and I hoped the Pope would attend. At least he can recall some personal experience from the combat. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:17:42 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 01, 2009, 10:12:37 PM
Looks like Goebbels won after all.
You can blame the Cold War for the persistence of this story. Before the Poles emerged from the iron curtain to be flabbergasted by the story we all just assumed it was true.
Actually, you can blame a post war Polish movie by Stanislaw Wajda. He made a highly symbolic/art house movie about WW2, where he put in a scene of cavalry charging the tanks as a sort of metaphor of the new era replacing the old era etc., and this was taken literally. :lol:
One thing I don't get is that Russia is vehemently accusing and Poland is vehemently denying that Polish diplomacy was trying to find some compromise with the nazis against the Soviets pre WW2 and to dismantle the Russo-French alliance.
The way I see it: Polish diplomacy would have needed to be fantastically incompetent not to do this. I mean this was the rational thing to do. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 01:24:36 AM
One thing I don't get is that Russia is vehemently accusing and Poland is vehemently denying that Polish diplomacy was trying to find some compromise with the nazis against the Soviets pre WW2 and to dismantle the Russo-French alliance.
The way I see it: Polish diplomacy would have needed to be fantastically incompetent not to do this. I mean this was the rational thing to do. :huh:
Yeah, but they can't just admit it. Most modern regimes in Europe look fondly on Stalinism, whereas Hitler's regime was the worst thing ever. Europeans can be very stupid sometimes.
Yeah, the Jewish Council of Germany issued a statement pretty much saying that it is unacceptable to try and compare Hitler and Stalin. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 06:37:21 AM
Yeah, the Jewish Council of Germany issued a statement pretty much saying that it is unacceptable to try and compare Hitler and Stalin. :rolleyes:
One ruthlessly invaded his neighbors and systematically murdered millions and the other was a German.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 07:23:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 06:37:21 AM
Yeah, the Jewish Council of Germany issued a statement pretty much saying that it is unacceptable to try and compare Hitler and Stalin. :rolleyes:
One ruthlessly invaded his neighbors and systematically murdered millions and the other was a German.
?
One was Georgian and the other was Austrian :contract:
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 07:29:12 AM
One was Georgian and the other was Austrian :contract:
I meant ethnically -_-
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2009, 06:19:54 AM
Yeah, but they can't just admit it. Most modern regimes in Europe look fondly on Stalinism, whereas Hitler's regime was the worst thing ever. Europeans can be very stupid sometimes.
:unsure:
Since when?
Stalinism hasn't even been popular with communists since the 50s let alone the political establishment.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 08:47:41 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2009, 06:19:54 AM
Yeah, but they can't just admit it. Most modern regimes in Europe look fondly on Stalinism, whereas Hitler's regime was the worst thing ever. Europeans can be very stupid sometimes.
:unsure:
Since when?
Stalinism hasn't even been popular with communists since the 50s let alone the political establishment.
Yeah but most of you fuckers allow the waving-around of red stars and red flags while you dont let nazis do the same with swastikas
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 08:52:21 AM
Yeah but most of you fuckers allow the waving-around of red stars and red flags while you dont let nazis do the same with swastikas
Nazism= 100% total evil
Communism= Spotty. In theory its quite nice. In practice it hasn't always went to nazi level evil.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 08:55:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 08:52:21 AM
Yeah but most of you fuckers allow the waving-around of red stars and red flags while you dont let nazis do the same with swastikas
Nazism= 100% total evil
Communism= Spotty. In theory its quite nice. In practice it hasn't always went to nazi level evil.
Communism in theory is far more horryfing than in practice.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 08:55:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 08:52:21 AM
Yeah but most of you fuckers allow the waving-around of red stars and red flags while you dont let nazis do the same with swastikas
Nazism= 100% total evil
Communism= Spotty. In theory its quite nice. In practice it hasn't always went to nazi level evil.
In theory it's theft, in practice it's evil.
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 09:00:00 AM
Communism in theory is far more horryfing than in practice.
:lmfao:
No.
In theory its a perfect society.
Its never going to work of course but taking it purely as it is on paper there's something rather wrong with you if you think its evil.
The only anti-commuism argument with any merit is the standard one against Utopia in the traditional sense; it would be boring.
Perhaps you could make a argument from that that a standard capitalist democratic system is better. We need a bit of suffering and inequality to make life worth living.
But worse than a totalitarian dictatorship?
No.
Quote from: HVC on September 02, 2009, 09:01:36 AM
In theory it's theft,
Meh. There's no "moral" way to distribute wealth, society just chooses the one that works best.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 09:08:49 AM
In theory its a perfect society.
Whose theory of Communism are we going with here?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 02, 2009, 09:01:36 AM
In theory it's theft,
Meh. There's no "moral" way to distribute wealth, society just chooses the one that works best.
and communism isn't the best way lol
I love how people still cling to the idiocy that communism was "good in theory".
Both communism and nazism/fascism sought to build a "perfect society" - that's the staple of any totalitarian system. They both also sought to physically destroy those who were standing in the way of this perfect society.
Incidentally, Holocaust was not a part of the "nazism theory" any more than gulags were part of the "communism theory".
Quote from: HVC on September 02, 2009, 09:12:40 AM
and communism isn't the best way lol
Agreed. Regulated free-market capitalism with progressive taxation and social safety nets is the best we've come up with so far.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 09:08:49 AM
But worse than a totalitarian dictatorship?
No.
Duh. As communism
is totalitarian dictatorship that comparison does not make any sense.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 09:13:46 AMIncidentally, Holocaust was not a part of the "nazism theory" any more than gulags were part of the "communism theory".
I disagree with that assessment. Genocide is a core tenet of Nazism, whereas it is only coincidental with Communism.
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2009, 10:25:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 09:08:49 AM
But worse than a totalitarian dictatorship?
No.
Duh. As communism is totalitarian dictatorship that comparison does not make any sense.
You mean
proletarian dictatorship. :P
Gulags are party of the neo-con theory.
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2009, 10:25:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 09:08:49 AM
But worse than a totalitarian dictatorship?
No.
Duh. As communism is totalitarian dictatorship that comparison does not make any sense.
No its not. There's no government let alone a totalitarian one.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 10:31:02 AMNo its not. There's no government let alone a totalitarian one.
There may not be a government (even if that's completely impractical), but even the egalitarian utopia of communism is still totalitarian and a dictatorship.
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2009, 10:54:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 10:31:02 AMNo its not. There's no government let alone a totalitarian one.
There may not be a government (even if that's completely impractical), but even the egalitarian utopia of communism is still totalitarian and a dictatorship.
How do you figure?
Its the complete opposite. Total freedom and democracy.
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 09:13:46 AMIncidentally, Holocaust was not a part of the "nazism theory" any more than gulags were part of the "communism theory".
I disagree with that assessment. Genocide is a core tenet of Nazism, whereas it is only coincidental with Communism.
Only if you define genocide as to include ethnic cleansing meant as forced resettlements and the like, without actually killing the people.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 10:31:02 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2009, 10:25:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 09:08:49 AM
But worse than a totalitarian dictatorship?
No.
Duh. As communism is totalitarian dictatorship that comparison does not make any sense.
No its not. There's no government let alone a totalitarian one.
No serious attempt at implementing communism ever made embraced its anarchist variety. If you want to perceive Bakunin-style anarchism as "communism in theory", then by the same token a bucolic corporatist folksy utopia embraced by some fringe catholic loons is "fascism in theory".
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 11:25:51 AM
No serious attempt at implementing communism ever made embraced its anarchist variety. If you want to perceive Bakunin-style anarchism as "communism in theory", then by the same token a bucolic corporatist folksy utopia embraced by some fringe catholic loons is "fascism in theory".
We're not talking about communism in practice. Just what it is in theory.
And as you should well know being a child of a communist education system the 'communist' countries were not in fact communist at all, merely socialist half-way stages that had to fill in the gaps before the world was ready for its happy flower-land communist utopia.
Anyway.
We're getting away from the point here.
Hitlerism==Nazism (yeah there was a party before him but it was both a non-entity and little to do with its later self)
Stalinism != communism. Eastern block governments even != communism. Its a much broader category and doesn't always mean evil.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 11:11:15 AM
How do you figure?
Its the complete opposite. Total freedom and democracy.
Egalitarism and liberty are exclusive in their extremes. Your totally egalitarian society can't be free. That's impossible. Just consider freedom of property. Does not exist in a communist society, ergo it is not free. Or freedom to change to a system that has freedom of property. Does not exist. That's a dictatorship as people can't exercise their political opinions freely.
The theory of communism even goes so far to prescribe a certain philosophical mindset that all members of society must have. Which happens to be contrary to human nature. That makes it totalitarian.
Communism in theory is either antithetical to freedom or entirely incoherent.
Communism in practice has been so uniformly dismal and awful that even if (hypothetically) it seemed wonderful in theory, the only logical conclusion for a sensible person to draw at this point is that theory is horribly wrong.
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 09:13:46 AMIncidentally, Holocaust was not a part of the "nazism theory" any more than gulags were part of the "communism theory".
I disagree with that assessment. Genocide is a core tenet of Nazism, whereas it is only coincidental with Communism.
The Kraut has the right of it.
The systematic murder of "undesirable peoples" is simply the consquence of taking nazism to its logical conclusion. Literally a final solution to the problem the ideology defines at the outset and sets out to overcome.
Communism as an ideology does not as a matter of pure logic require mass murder, it just so happens that mass murder is one of the few techniques that is sufficiently effective for coercing human beings into complying with the system, and hence is often resorted to by communist regimes that want to stick around for more than a few weeks.
God Marty, can't you keep yourself from collaborating with the Germans for a few seconds?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2009, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 09:13:46 AMIncidentally, Holocaust was not a part of the "nazism theory" any more than gulags were part of the "communism theory".
I disagree with that assessment. Genocide is a core tenet of Nazism, whereas it is only coincidental with Communism.
The Kraut has the right of it.
The systematic murder of "undesirable peoples" is simply the consquence of taking nazism to its logical conclusion. Literally a final solution to the problem the ideology defines at the outset and sets out to overcome.
Communism as an ideology does not as a matter of pure logic require mass murder, it just so happens that mass murder is one of the few techniques that is sufficiently effective for coercing human beings into complying with the system, and hence is often resorted to by communist regimes that want to stick around for more than a few weeks.
If the system/ideology requires mass murder and suppression of other ideas, because so many people won't accept it, then it can't be good.
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 09:08:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 09:00:00 AM
Communism in theory is far more horryfing than in practice.
:lmfao:
No.
In theory its a perfect society.
Its never going to work of course but taking it purely as it is on paper there's something rather wrong with you if you think its evil.
The only anti-commuism argument with any merit is the standard one against Utopia in the traditional sense; it would be boring.
Perhaps you could make a argument from that that a standard capitalist democratic system is better. We need a bit of suffering and inequality to make life worth living.
But worse than a totalitarian dictatorship?
No.
The description that Marx gives of communist society doesn't even make sense.
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 09:00:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 08:55:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 08:52:21 AM
Yeah but most of you fuckers allow the waving-around of red stars and red flags while you dont let nazis do the same with swastikas
Nazism= 100% total evil
Communism= Spotty. In theory its quite nice. In practice it hasn't always went to nazi level evil.
Communism in theory is far more horryfing than in practice.
Good. Your people deserved it.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 02:35:11 PM
Good. Your people deserved it.
For betraying their King-Emperor?
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 02:36:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 02:35:11 PM
Good. Your people deserved it.
For betraying their King-Emperor?
For joining Germany, for taking it's piece of the Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and Romania. Hungary invaded the Soviet Union with it's eyes wide open.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 02:41:25 PM
For joining Germany, for taking it's piece of the Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and Romania. Hungary invaded the Soviet Union with it's eyes wide open.
You are right on the first part but Germany had to arrange for the Soviet airforce to bomb Hungary to get the Hungarians to declare war on the USSR.
Romania was the only Axis ally eager to join in the attacking of the Soviets, but only to get the territory Stalin took from them back.
Since Hungary and Italy had no interest in getting any Soviet land they were less interested.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 02:46:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 02:41:25 PM
For joining Germany, for taking it's piece of the Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and Romania. Hungary invaded the Soviet Union with it's eyes wide open.
You are right on the first part but Germany had to arrange for the Soviet airforce to bomb Hungary to get the Hungarians to declare war on the USSR.
Romania was the only Axis ally eager to join in the attacking of the Soviets, but only to get the territory Stalin took from them back.
Since Hungary and Italy had no interest in getting any Soviet land they were less interested.
Heh. Hitler also got the Poles to take a German Radio station...
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 02:41:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 02:36:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 02:35:11 PM
Good. Your people deserved it.
For betraying their King-Emperor?
For joining Germany, for taking it's piece of the Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and Romania. Hungary invaded the Soviet Union with it's eyes wide open.
:rolleyes: for starters, we did not take any land from czechslovakia, yugoslavia and romania. We took back what was ours. We choosed an abysmal ally to achieve that, true, but the fact remains: we were taking back what was ours.
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 02:51:56 PM
:rolleyes: for starters, we did not take any land from czechslovakia, yugoslavia and romania. We took back what was ours. We choosed an abysmal ally to achieve that, true, but the fact remains: we were taking back what was ours.
That little thing called the Treaty of Trianon said otherwise.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 02:55:36 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 02:51:56 PM
:rolleyes: for starters, we did not take any land from czechslovakia, yugoslavia and romania. We took back what was ours. We choosed an abysmal ally to achieve that, true, but the fact remains: we were taking back what was ours.
That little thing called the Treaty of Trianon said otherwise.
It's all Woodrow Wilson's fault.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 03:00:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 02:55:36 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 02:51:56 PM
:rolleyes: for starters, we did not take any land from czechslovakia, yugoslavia and romania. We took back what was ours. We choosed an abysmal ally to achieve that, true, but the fact remains: we were taking back what was ours.
That little thing called the Treaty of Trianon said otherwise.
It's all Woodrow Wilson's fault.
Fuck that. The Huns shouldn't have been allowed to keep a country in the first place.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2009, 03:00:41 PM
It's all Woodrow Wilson's fault.
It was really Hungary's great misfortune to have a Communist Revolution right when the land was being parcelled out. Bad timing.
Besides the US didn't sign the treaty anyway.
but you can have equality under the law, equality of rights, both egalitarian concepts and not antithetical to freedom.
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 02:51:56 PM
:rolleyes: for starters, we did not take any land from czechslovakia, yugoslavia and romania. We took back what was ours. We choosed an abysmal ally to achieve that, true, but the fact remains: we were taking back what was ours.
Your entire country belonged to the Habsburgs; keep up this stuff about "taking back what was ours", and we will be forced to turn over all you rascally rebels to that antediluvian fathead Otto.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 02, 2009, 03:16:25 PM
but you can have equality under the law, equality of rights, both egalitarian concepts and not antithetical to freedom.
Except the Freedom to be unequal.
I am not going to waste energy on debating the claim that a society where 100% equal distribution of wealth could be free, or even just. That's utter naive stupidity. Even anarcho-capitalism, my utopia of choice has more sense of reality, and I am the first to admit that if it was to put to practice it would end up as feudalism in a matter of weeks.
Communism, especially if "done right" is a nightmare.
Quote from: Tamas on September 02, 2009, 03:38:44 PM
I am not going to waste energy on debating the claim that a society where 100% equal distribution of wealth could be free, or even just. That's utter naive stupidity. Even anarcho-capitalism, my utopia of choice has more sense of reality, and I am the first to admit that if it was to put to practice it would end up as feudalism in a matter of weeks.
Communism, especially if "done right" is a nightmare.
Commies want free stuff.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 02, 2009, 03:53:10 PM
Commies want free stuff.
They're still destroying America:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_yNLmj0a-HXE%2FSYSqo11kHJI%2FAAAAAAAAEbw%2FkaTmZ1cw988%2Fmatthew_lesko_list_view.jpg&hash=6589ba6e0e71d4e4f8a29ec1ed50c17e183d0865)
I wish I could pull off wearing yellow and green socks.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 02:50:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 02:46:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 02:41:25 PM
For joining Germany, for taking it's piece of the Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and Romania. Hungary invaded the Soviet Union with it's eyes wide open.
You are right on the first part but Germany had to arrange for the Soviet airforce to bomb Hungary to get the Hungarians to declare war on the USSR.
Romania was the only Axis ally eager to join in the attacking of the Soviets, but only to get the territory Stalin took from them back.
Since Hungary and Italy had no interest in getting any Soviet land they were less interested.
Heh. Hitler also got the Poles to take a German Radio station...
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2009, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 09:13:46 AMIncidentally, Holocaust was not a part of the "nazism theory" any more than gulags were part of the "communism theory".
I disagree with that assessment. Genocide is a core tenet of Nazism, whereas it is only coincidental with Communism.
The Kraut has the right of it.
The systematic murder of "undesirable peoples" is simply the consquence of taking nazism to its logical conclusion. Literally a final solution to the problem the ideology defines at the outset and sets out to overcome.
Communism as an ideology does not as a matter of pure logic require mass murder, it just so happens that mass murder is one of the few techniques that is sufficiently effective for coercing human beings into complying with the system, and hence is often resorted to by communist regimes that want to stick around for more than a few weeks.
Ok I'm willing to concede your observation on nazism when it comes to people like homosexuals, the mentally disabled etc (but then again such groups were persecuted, albeit not to the same degree, by the contemporaries of Hitler even in Western democracies). However, I'd argue that when it comes to ethnic minorities, such as Jews, the Roma etc., nazism does not absolutely require their systematic murder - a removal from the territory of a nazi country would be enough - that is why the nazis seriously entertained the preposterous notion of shipping off all the Jews to Madagascar.
The nazi ideologues want to achieve a perfect society through a "racial purity" - that involves a removal of ethnic minorities, but not necessarily their physical annihilation, I'd say. I think that's actually how many Germans were deluded into passively supporting the nazis.
Quotea removal from the territory of a nazi country would be enough - that is why the nazis seriously entertained the preposterous notion of shipping off all the Jews to Madagascar.
I find it hard to believe an ideology that was seriously convinced that
international "Jewry" was an existential threat would have truly been satisfied with merely exiling them.
No, I'm afraid annihilation was the only possible outcome for the Jews under Nazism. This was a regime that would rather use rolling stock to transport its victims to the death camps even in the dying days of the war when they could have been used for precious ammunition and supplies.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 04:34:00 PM
However, I'd argue that when it comes to ethnic minorities, such as Jews, the Roma etc., nazism does not absolutely require their systematic murder - a removal from the territory of a nazi country would be enough
Ultimately it wasn't enough, and that was no accident. It wasn't enough to simply remove individual Jews from the territorial limits, because that would still leave the threat of "der erwige Jude". thus, emigration and expulsion were regarded as "provisional" or temporary solutions in the absence of other effective remedies. Once the nature of the War in the East made physical killing on a mass scale a feasible option technically and politically, the Nazis immediately jumped to adopt it. One of the most interesting things about Wansee is that none of the attendees questioned or were even surprised at the notion of physical elimination. Stuckart raised issues about mixed marriages and Neumann complained about labor shortages but no one stood and said - "hey what's all this about final solutions - isn't expulsion enough"? Nothing like that happened, b/c the "solution" of mass murder was recognized for what it was - the most logical and natural method for implementing the Reich's ideological imperative.
I don't think the Madagascar thing was seriously considered. And I believe the idea was to keep them in prison camps there.
Ok but I think we are comparing apples and oranges here.
The claim that "communism is not murderous in theory" is based on whose theory? Stalin's? He advocated mass murder. Lenin's? He advocated international revolution that was to be bloody. No, the claim is based on writings of Marx.
If so, then comparing this to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" really doesn't make sense, since Hitler would be the nazi equivalent of Lenin or Stalin, not of Marx. Admittedly, there isn't the same kind of "father figure" for nazism, but you'd be more correct looking at one of the late 19th century German philosophers than Hitler for the "theoretical foundations of nazism".
Nazism didn't have philosophical foundations. It wasn't exactly a brains operation.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 05:29:39 PM
Nazism didn't have philosophical foundations. It wasn't exactly a brains operation.
It was based in the 19th century's German romanticism. It had as much to do with Nietzsche as the Soviet brand of communism had to do with Marx (note, for example, that Marx's theory concerned industrial and post-industrial societies; the Bolshevik Revolution happened before Russia even reached a full blown industrial phase).
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 05:27:42 PM
Ok but I think we are comparing apples and oranges here.
The claim that "communism is not murderous in theory" is based on whose theory? Stalin's? He advocated mass murder. Lenin's? He advocated international revolution that was to be bloody. No, the claim is based on writings of Marx.
If so, then comparing this to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" really doesn't make sense, since Hitler would be the nazi equivalent of Lenin or Stalin, not of Marx. Admittedly, there isn't the same kind of "father figure" for nazism, but you'd be more correct looking at one of the late 19th century German philosophers than Hitler for the "theoretical foundations of nazism".
Heck, I think Jos is going pre-Marx to some of those 19th century hippie villages for his inspiration.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 05:27:42 PM
there isn't the same kind of "father figure" for nazism, but you'd be more correct looking at one of the late 19th century German philosophers than Hitler for the "theoretical foundations of nazism".
Arthur de Gobineau? He was the dude who thought up the whole thing I thought. A Frenchman who thought France was doomed because of mixbreeding...naturally his ideas were more popular in Germany.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 02, 2009, 05:32:59 PM
Heck, I think Jos is going pre-Marx to some of those 19th century hippie villages for his inspiration.
Those guys, like Louis Blanc, were self-labelled Socialists not Communists.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 05:34:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 05:27:42 PM
there isn't the same kind of "father figure" for nazism, but you'd be more correct looking at one of the late 19th century German philosophers than Hitler for the "theoretical foundations of nazism".
Arthur de Gobineau? He was the dude who thought up the whole thing I thought. A Frenchman who thought France was doomed because of mixbreeding...naturally his ideas were more popular in Germany.
Yeah, I guess it would be fair to see that it was the mix of him and Nietzsche (subsequently heavily edited/misapplied/reforged into a political and totalitarian ideology) much like the works of Marx and Engels were used by the communists in Russia. In both cases you have a cooky - but ultimately not necessarily murderous - ideology of a "perfect society" thought up by some crazy misanthropes with no political success whatsoever (Marx allegedly suffered from a psychosis due to heavy pain from warts under his armpits; Nietzsche ended up in a loony bin), used for political purposes by murderous bastards.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 05:31:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 05:29:39 PM
Nazism didn't have philosophical foundations. It wasn't exactly a brains operation.
It was based in the 19th century's German romanticism. It had as much to do with Nietzsche as the Soviet brand of communism had to do with Marx (note, for example, that Marx's theory concerned industrial and post-industrial societies; the Bolshevik Revolution happened before Russia even reached a full blown industrial phase).
I never argued it had much to do with Nietzsche thought some of his idea did influence some the nazis. Mostly it was just reactionary opportunism.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 09:13:46 AM
I love how people still cling to the idiocy that communism was "good in theory".
Both communism and nazism/fascism sought to build a "perfect society" - that's the staple of any totalitarian system. They both also sought to physically destroy those who were standing in the way of this perfect society.
Incidentally, Holocaust was not a part of the "nazism theory" any more than gulags were part of the "communism theory".
You actually said something smart. :huh:
Oh, incidentally, President Kaczynski has apologized during his speech for Poland grabbing a part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (first time ever from a Polish leader) and Czechs apparently are now ecstatic. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:12:28 PM
Oh, incidentally, President Kaczynski has apologized during his speech for Poland grabbing a part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (first time ever from a Polish leader) and Czechs apparently now love us. :huh:
It was about time. That was a despicable act and something needed to be said.
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:12:28 PM
Oh, incidentally, President Kaczynski has apologized during his speech for Poland grabbing a part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (first time ever from a Polish leader) and Czechs apparently now love us. :huh:
It was about time. That was a despicable act and something needed to be said.
Well it was mostly stupid. It would be more despicable if the Czechs themselves didn't grab it from Poland when Poland was busy fighting the Soviets in 1920. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:15:38 PM
Well it was mostly stupid. It would be more despicable if the Czechs themselves didn't grab it from Poland when Poland was busy fighting the Soviets in 1920. ;)
That was different since Poland won in 1920.
If Poland had lost and the Soviet Union conquered Eastern Europe....well then the Czechs would have looked like real assholes. Sort of like the Poles did in 1938.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:12:28 PM
Oh, incidentally, President Kaczynski has apologized during his speech for Poland grabbing a part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (first time ever from a Polish leader) and Czechs apparently now love us. :huh:
It was about time. That was a despicable act and something needed to be said.
Well it was mostly stupid. It would be more despicable if the Czechs themselves didn't grab it from PolandRussia when Poland was busy fighting the Soviets in 1920. ;)
Fixed it for you.
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:18:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:15:38 PM
Well it was mostly stupid. It would be more despicable if the Czechs themselves didn't grab it from Poland when Poland was busy fighting the Soviets in 1920. ;)
That was different since Poland won in 1920.
If Poland had lost and the Soviet Union conquered Eastern Europe....well then the Czechs would have looked like real assholes. Sort of like the Poles did in 1938.
Yeah I know. That's why I said it was more stupid than evil. Essentially, Poles felt they were in the right, but no matter if they were, you just don't do shit like this.
Also, I don't remember the facts but I think Czechs grabbed it when Poland looked like it was on the losing side - before the battle of Warsaw it looked like Poland will get overrun by the Soviets.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:19:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:12:28 PM
Oh, incidentally, President Kaczynski has apologized during his speech for Poland grabbing a part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (first time ever from a Polish leader) and Czechs apparently now love us. :huh:
It was about time. That was a despicable act and something needed to be said.
Well it was mostly stupid. It would be more despicable if the Czechs themselves didn't grab it from PolandRussia when Poland was busy fighting the Soviets in 1920. ;)
Fixed it for you.
That part was never owned by Russia. It was Austrian before the Polish declaration of independence. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:20:33 PM
Yeah I know. That's why I said it was more stupid than evil. Essentially, Poles felt they were in the right, but no matter if they were, you just don't do shit like this.
Also, I don't remember the facts but I think Czechs grabbed it when Poland looked like it was on the losing side - before the battle of Warsaw it looked like Poland will get overrun by the Soviets.
I think you are right and the Czechs lucked out the sneaky devils.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:19:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:12:28 PM
Oh, incidentally, President Kaczynski has apologized during his speech for Poland grabbing a part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (first time ever from a Polish leader) and Czechs apparently now love us. :huh:
It was about time. That was a despicable act and something needed to be said.
Well it was mostly stupid. It would be more despicable if the Czechs themselves didn't grab it from PolandRussia when Poland was busy fighting the Soviets in 1920. ;)
Fixed it for you.
This makes absolutely no sense
Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:19:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:12:28 PM
Oh, incidentally, President Kaczynski has apologized during his speech for Poland grabbing a part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (first time ever from a Polish leader) and Czechs apparently now love us. :huh:
It was about time. That was a despicable act and something needed to be said.
Well it was mostly stupid. It would be more despicable if the Czechs themselves didn't grab it from PolandRussia when Poland was busy fighting the Soviets in 1920. ;)
Fixed it for you.
This makes absolutely no sense
Welcome to the World of Raz.
Also, Mrs. Merkel's speech was the best. No half truths, no excuses. It made Putin look like a lying KGB aparatchik (doh!).
Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 05:23:20 PM
This makes absolutely no sense
It belonged to Russia. If the Poles had stayed loyal to Russia they wouldn't have nearly so much bloodshed.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:28:18 PM
Also, Mrs. Merkel's speech was the best. No half truths, no excuses. It made Putin look like a lying KGB aparatchik (doh!).
Well she is not trying to rehabilitate Hitler.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 03, 2009, 05:33:48 PM
Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 05:23:20 PM
This makes absolutely no sense
It belonged to Russia. If the Poles had stayed loyal to Russia they wouldn't have nearly so much bloodshed.
No it didn't. Before WW1, it belonged to Austira
Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 06:10:39 PM
No it didn't. Before WW1, it belonged to Austira
Let's face it though. If the treacherous Czechs had stayed loyal to Austria none of this would have happened either.
Quote from: Valmy on September 03, 2009, 06:11:48 PM
Quote from: Sahib on September 03, 2009, 06:10:39 PM
No it didn't. Before WW1, it belonged to Austira
Let's face it though. If the treacherous Czechs had stayed loyal to Austria none of this would have happened either.
And this is key.
BTW: I would like to note that the Poles didn't have any dreadnought battleships, and were thus subjugated and enslaved repeatedly. Perhaps if the Poles had spent less time in the 30s on anti-armour cavalry techniques and more on dreadnought construction, they might have been slaves throughout the entire 20th century.