Endymion

What is less and less amusing are your "one sentence quotes" picking one sentence out of proper context, playing a retard who does not understand what is being said, picking on words and semantics, ignoring all the rest of the posted stuff when you can't bring yourself to counter-argument anything else. Which more and more reinforces an idea that you're just a pitiful troll and a raving moron with a fixed idea which you can't even argue for properly. Not to mention discrediting yourself by trying to reduce all the discussion to argumentum ad hitlerum which is a sure sign of bigger than normal retardation. PS. one way or another, either you start discussing in a normal fashion, relating to whole posts and countering arguments with your own instead of plain trolling or simply put, bugger off.

Sure. Or you can do reductio ad hitlerum once again and discredit yourself once more. You did it once, come on, don't be shy. So by that logic when two rabid dogs bite each other and one wins, he becomes the good guy? Exchanging Nazi occupation for a Soviet one is a good deed now? Concentration camps into gulags? Gas chamber to mass deportations and a death in a mine beyond arctic circle or a bullet in the head in a mass grave? Being tortured and murdered by gestapo into being tortured and killed by NKVD or its pawns? Try telling all the victims they should be glad the Soviets came and that Stalin was a "saviour". That kind of thinking is what I am opposed to. There was no "good guys" in the war on the eastern front. One kind of slavery and oppresion only turned into another. Yet you dare call that being saved. The amount of hypocrisy or sheer lack of education in this regard is just astonishing. You clearly do not realise what countries like mine went through, you do not realise what kind of beast Stalin was. You have no knowledge or at least fail to acknowledge what kind of atrocities the Soviets commited 1939-1941 and later 1944 up until 1953 and Stalin's death, when the worst terror reigned. The fact that the West allied with one devil to defeat another does not make one of them a good guy. The only good way that war could've ended would be an attack on the USSR by the US and the Brits, right after defeating the Reich, and overthrowing Stalin. Both dictators would hopefully be dead, but that did not happen for a multitude of reasons of course, so don't blurt out stuff about happy endings. Oh I'm sure it all ended well for the USA, Britain, and other western allies. France, despite the whole Vichy collaboration thing and only minor role in the war effort suddenly became a major player in dividing the spoils of war. Austria for some reason was seen as a victim. Russia, despite its role in starting the war suddenly became "saviour". Ultimately and strangely enough Germany (at least the western part) sort of won its chance as well, luckily escaping occupation by the Russians and being able to rebuild the country, shortly after the war being rebuilt as the West's ally. All the while whole Eastern Europe moaned and suffered under Soviet boots. But then again, that was the price of "victory" for the West. It's just a shame only a few really won the war while others were "freed" from one nightmarish oppression and fell prey to another, equally twisted totalitarian system of organised mass murder and even until today it's difficult to get that recognized, and that there are so many apologists for one system or the other.

Whereas I said that Stalin was only part of "Allies" after 1941 and before he was Hitler's ally who co-started the war by agression on Poland on 17th September 1939. WWII started in September 1939 not in June 1941. He was the agressor then, same as in case of Finland and Baltic states, only then forced fight a defensive war after Hitler's strike on Russia. You failed to acknowledge this time and time again. Being disrespectful towards the victims and disregarding the main point they were mentioned will not make you look cool. That is not the reason they were mentioned. If you fail to comprehend that then it's really sad. Oh, another empty statement with no facts. Prove it then if you're so sure. Facts, numbers. I told you a few times already, it was exchanging one terror for another. I gave you facts about murders, prosecutions, how people suffered under BOTH regimes. Still, you prefer to make empty statements not backed by anything, apparently not knowing your facts. But hey, making idiotic statements with no proof to follow is much easier for you right? failed to see the other part? You're trying to troll but fail every single time, just makes you look like a moron if you can't even quote full sentences. And do remember the context? It was after you tried to compare 1970s-1980s situation in Poland with Nazi occupation. Trolling again I see. Learn to quote in relevant context and don't play stupid. Worse than what? Other totalitarian regimes? Because it's the same crap and does not deserve to be treated better than others, certainly not as a "saviour" of Europe. WHAT! THE! ****??? Sorry to all the mods on the board, but JonS, are you retarded? After repeatedly saying that both were murderous bastards of the same calibre? REALLY? Honestly, just stick your "enquiring mind" where it belongs. Apparently you tried to troll me into such a reaction, congratulations then, you made it using your retarded rhetoric.

I explained what I meant by it TWICE, if you're too stupid to understand that it's your problem mate. If you wanted to compare "achievements" by both dictators then count all of it. Before and after the war. Thankfully one lived only until 1945 or the number would probably be higher. Congratulations on being this board's dumbest poster... PS And stop editing your posts after someone replies to make you look better. It really doesn't.

And congratulations on missing the point entirely again. Don't get into disease details as you'll suddenly find an analogy in the way both spread to real life occurences. The point was, it's a choice between two diseases, both lethal, period, don't pretend you're dumber than in reality. Don't dig in into each disease definition, you're just trying to derail it now. If you want to compare lethality compare real life victims of both then. 12 Million civilians for Hitler and 20-40 (depending on the count, if you include Great Hunger in Ukraine etc.) for Stalin. Does that mean one better than the other? NO! Is one ok because the other took more victims? NO! Both of these mass murderers deserve nothing but contempt but for a sad joke of history and political reasons one is sometimes still celebrated as an Ally, while being co-responsible for starting the war and consecutive enslavement of all Eastern Europe. I sincerely don't understand how there are still people in the free world trying to justify mass murderers of any sort....

Yes, they just got scared of a Tiger shooting at them and penetrating, but there were no casualties. The Tiger reversed and did not finish the job, and two times more there was a similar story.

Knowing why Hitler decided to invade Russia does not justify any of his crimes. Where did you get all that stuff? That was an obvious move, sooner or layter was bound to happen from one side of the other taking into account the balance of forces and strategic situation. You have a very strange logic if you find that apologetic. Rofl? Really? And signing a pact, making an alliance to divide Poland and Baltic area is not that? And invading Poland on 17th September according to said Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was not an act of war? Really people, where do you come from? And JonS: This is getting old...Oh really? In what regard? Treating both totalitarian regimes as equally evil like they deserve? So far it's you ignoring ANY arguments. It's a farce, I come up with arguments, you attack ad personam, ad infinitum. PS. congratulations on editting the post before I posted, thankfully I had the quote lol. Just says stuff about your level of discussion.

No, it equals the fact that you thought Stalin was "OBVIOUSLY" a better choice to which I reacted as you might recall: After which all your attempts to obviously escape from the subject started. Anything to add? Want to argue a bit more on the subject perhaps?

Hmm, so Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is unverifiable? Inasion of Poland on 17th September did not happen? Invasion of Baltic states did not happen? Winter war 39/40 as well? Millions of Stalin's victims did not happen? Gulags did not happen? What next, you're going to deny holocaust? You're an absolutely horrible person, a liar or just an uneducated brat if you're trying to deny things like this. Let me remind you of what you said then. Lie much? Congratulations on denying what you said one page ago, way to go guy. I can't help your appaling ability to lie with a straight face. It's really difficult to discuss with people like you. You tend to forgo all facts, not reply to arguments, try to use simplistic eristic techniques to win the argument in an easy way, deny simple truths when they're inconvenient to your theory... Really, what people will not do to win an argument on the internet...

Apologetic towards whom? That the two scum fought each other? You clearly have no idea what I'm writing about do you? It's you who are apparently trying to be apologetic towards Stalin, even after taking active part in starting the war, being Hitler's ally and for attacking and enslaving so many countries, and just because Hitler attacked him first in 1941? No mate, there is no excuse for either, the two regimes were EQUALLY bad, the worst that could happen to humanity, even worse that they coexisted at roughly the same time. Barbarossa and helping defeat Hitler (a matter of survival and then conquest) does not excuse uncle Stalin for anything he did.

You're only gonna question that one thing which was a minor example of some of the people who put down theories of Stalin being almost ready to invade himself? Not that he was the only one. Nor am I saying his timing is exact. It was an example. There are many historians who claim Stalin was preparing to stab Hitler. Knowing Stalin and knowing he was not stupid but a cunning beast he most assuredly did have such plans. Were they exactly as Suvorov says, with timing and details? Debatable. Does not change the fact it's the most probable theory. Anyway, that was a little side track, do you even remember the main point which was saying that Nazis and Communists were equally evil? Don't try to disprove all I have to say by sticking to one sentence only, one that I'm not wholeheartedly defending even, it does not serve you. I know it's very convenient for you, because I'm assuming you have a problem questioning anything else I said, mainly that two regimes started a war, were aggresive sides, and only in 1941 finally went for each other's throats, and as a result one of the dictators effectively won half of Europe because the western allies would even ally with a devil to defeat another. Your point was that Stalin was better that Hitler so I stated a lot different things to the contrary, none of which you even replied, first trying to say I was "coloring" because of my nationality and then sticking to Suvorov stuff. As I understand you still claim uncle Stalin was a good guy despite of all the atrocities he committed and all the millions of people he killed?

In a recent game I had a Sherman crew do it three times in a row The tank was penetrated, crew jumped out, remounted them next turn, got a penetrating shot again, jumped out and remounted and the same story once more after that Regular/normal motivation. A pity it was a night fight and the tank finished its wonderful life finally getting hit in the back by friendly AT gun...I guess you can't be lucky all the time heh.

Erm, in the time where AK was strongest, in summer 1943 it accounted for 380.000 soldiers. NSZ (National Armed Forced, a bit more right wing (god forbid I don't mean fascist) but allied with AK) had 100.000 people at peak time. The communist resistance in spring 1944 amounted to 5.000 people... The communist and other groups you mentioned were a very insignificant force, later bloated by communist writers during Soviet occupation to make it seem it meant anything. Poland really was that anti communist and if not for the Soviet army the Communists would not be ruling Poland after the war. There were around 100-200.000 people (mostly gathered around WIN (former AK mostly) and NZS) actively fighting the Soviets and the communist government until 1950s. These are little know facts, only after Poland became independent again can the history be truely verified. I know you have the right to not know all that, I don't blame you. Like I said, communist propaganda was very efficient. Well, it's up to debate, there are other sources. Anyway, that was just one of the points. Does not change the fact Stalin only became Hitler's prey at a certain point in the war, being his good ally in the 30s until 1941. That was the main point here Well that's semantics really. Might as well just say he was prejudiced towards what I had to say and disregarded it because of my nationality. Xenophobic sounds better in this case? What would be the proper word then?

@ Rokko AK was involved in smuggling Jews out of the ghetto, getting new identities for jewish children and adults, helping to hide them till the end of the war. AK issued death sentences to anyone who betrayed jews to Germans. When uprising in Warsaw ghetto started in 1943 (not to confuse with Warsaw uprising in 1944) AK delivered weapons and even some small help to the fighters there. When it failed, they helped smuggle the remaining fighters out of the ghetto, Marek Edelmann among them (last leader of the jewish guerillas, later took part in Warsaw uprising in 1944). Many many other instances of stuff like that, so to call the anti-semite is well, very painful for those who remember all these deeds. The part about anti semitism being common is true. But it was a different kind of anti semitism, based on the same, mostly economic principles, same as towards any significat minority at that time in any country. It had nothing to do with Nazi untermensch ideology and was not aggressive enough to cause holocaust etc. This was something like people's general dislike towards gypsies or immigrants present nowadays in any country - same as british lower classes start to dislike immigrants from eastern europe for "stealing their jobs" etc. I can agree with that. Some Poles were traitors of course, sold Jews to Germans. There are bad people in any nation. But it was never a widespread thing, never took the scale of what happened in France or Italy were collaboration in this regard was much more widely spread.

Oh wow, seems you will be denying stuff right? You very conveniently omitted OFFENSIVE military actions agains Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland. These were first, and invasion of Poland started WWII, September the 1st aggressionby Germany and September the 17th attacks from the east by the soviets, get your facts straight. Detailed division of Poland and Baltic states was also agreed upon. Further military action by Stalin was an effect of that pact, an alliance that made the war possible. Of course, Hitler managed to be slightly faster than Stalin who was planning exactly the same move against him. Soviet army was preparing for an offensive war, Stalin was unlucky to be a bit late. Read "Icebreaker" by Alexandr Suworow as an example, it's just one of the good books on the subjects. One tyrant outsmarting and being faster than the other, that's what it was. Might as well say, two rabid dogs fighting over the bones of Europe. It's a choice between malaria and cholera, or any other two plagues you might think of. Stalin was a monster on a same level as Hitler, responsible for even more deaths (43 million) but I'll not be judging them who killed more, they were equally twisted and evil. There is no obvious choice, countries under Soviet occupation suffered similarly to what happened under Nazi rule. Concentration camps instead gulags, death camp for death camp, clear choice indeed. Colour? Maybe prove me wrong first instead of dismissing it by simply being racist thank you very much? If you find anything inaccurate I'll happily discuss with you, but on a basis "you're from this country and that so you're full of crap". And? Do you think it was easier under Soviet occupaction? Do you even know what happened to people there? How many died in Soviet prisons, how many died in Gulags or were forcefully moved deep into Russia? Not to mention stuff like Katyn. It was the same crap, don't be apologising for one regime, they were the same evil. You're comparing post war marionette country with what happened during the war under direct Soviet occupation. Compare the two in relevant periods of time 1939 -1941 and 1944 -1945. Of course, we could also mention what happened in post war times, how many people were butchered, imprisoned or repatriated because they opposed the new awesome communist rule. In other words, you apparently know very little about these events, not surpising considering how successful the Soviet propaganda was and how they were valued allies at the time of war. In Russia itself and in occupied countries these were taboo subjects as well. Do you know when Soviets admitted the Katyn massaccre? 1990. Please don't try to be apologetic towards one of the regimes. I don't know where you're coming from or why you're trying to do this but learn some history first. They were the faces of the same evil, both based on terror, both having millions of victims, both ruled by terrible tyrants. I don't even know how you can attempt to see one of them as better ones. There is no "lesser evil" here.

Only after 1941 after being backstabbed by their good friend Hitler. You need to always remember that Russians along with their German friends, were the ones to start this war. Remember Ribbentrop - Molotov pact. Remember backstabbing and invading Poland on 17th September 1939 and all atrocities committed there. Remember Invasion of the Baltic states and Winter war in Finland. Remember how close it was for the allies to actually declare war on the soviets then. It always cracks me up that Russia is somehow seen as the good guys as they are co-responsible for starting the war and commiting some of the worst war crimes on all the nations in eastern europe. The fact that they switched sides after being betrayed by the nazis does not make them so. Two terrible, murderous regimes, the nazis and the communists started the war side by side, and by a terrible joke of history one of them emerged victorious and celebrated and enslaved half of Europe for almost 50 years instead of being defeated like they should be along with the nazis. As for the subject itself, the series is very apologetic for the Germans, being part of the Germany's current doctrine to somehow try to show Germany as a victim of a bad, multinational Nazi regime with which most Germans had nothing to do. It's their way to deal with history, with difficult stuff that happened, for falling into this terrible ideology and I don't blame them for trying but it falsifies history. I am from Poland and one thing especially struck me as bad in the series and caused a sort of scandal involving a protest by the polish embassy in Berlin. The series falsifies the image of polish resistance, showing them for some reason as xenophobic, anti-semites, expelling a Jew from their ranks after they found out he's jewish! Really, I could go on for hours on how many levels this is false, but let me just say this, trying to change history like that, mixing victims with agressors and blurring the whole image is just apalling to me. PS. About Schindler agusto wrote: He's not as crystal clear as you might think. He was actually a prominent Nazi (proud member of NSDAP, friends with governor Hans Frank and Hauptsturmführer SS Amon Göth responsible for "Jewish affairs" in Krakow) businessman who made a fortune during the war using almost free labour by the Jewish workers. At a point, it became obvious that working for him meant life and many Jews gave him large sums of money to be hired in his factory. He made a fortune this way. The saving of his workers near the end of the war when defeat was certain was a calculated move which meant life for him and saved him from a trial. His story was further popularised in a book and a movie and thus he became a hero. Not everything is as obvious as it seems