Unsere Mutter, unsere Vater

[agusto]

Well, I guess it is threads like this one why the forum rules for the general discussion forum say that political discussions about ww2 are to be avoided. Maybe we should have such a rule in the CMx2 forum too.

[Endymion]

The Nazi regime. If Stalin had planned an attack on Germany and Hitler just had attacked first, this is the perfect justification from the German Operation Barbarossa. Saying this means defending Hitlers decision to invade Russia. Besides all of that, it is simply not true. There were no concret Soviet plans for an attack on Germany.

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.

The fact that both the USSR and the 3rd Reich both were equally inconvenient places to live in doesnt mean they are both equally responsible for starting the war.

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:

Yeah: your objectivity on this is hoplessly compromised.

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.

[LukeFF]

How many good Americans stood up to stop Bush from invading Iraq????

Way to derail the thread.

[c3k]

How are the Soviet frontier dispositions explained?

[JonS]

Actually, I do have a comment:

It's a choice between malaria and cholera, or any other two plagues you might think of.

This is a really good analogy. Malaria affects a vast number of people, but kills relatively few of them. Cholera affects much fewer people, but kills a far higher proportion of those it affects. Furthermore the lasting effects for a survivor of cholera are minimal, while a malaria survivor has to cope with relapses of varying severity at fairly regular intervals.

If you die it really doesn't matter which disease killed you. You're dead dead either way. But, outside the narrow concerns of the individual, there are clearly better aspects of each disease for a population. Higher incidence with lower mortality but lingering effects vs lower incidence with higher mortality but no lingering effects. Which do you chose to affect a population? Neither choice is good, but depending on your point of view one is clearly better than the other. Furthermore, given $1,000,000 to spend on research or treatment, choosing to spend it all on one alone is a much better investment than the other, or splitting the money 50:50.

The analogy could be usefully extended by getting into the different mechanisms which cause each disease, hygiene vs environment (or active negligence vs passive negligence).

To say that cholera and malaria are as bad as each other is simply absurd. That is the point you were making, right?

[Endymion]

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....

[JonS]

Hey, it's your analogy. Don't blame me if it argues my point better than yours

I see you're getting into magic maths now. Congrats. I hadn't realised that the Great Hunger occurred during WWII, in a nation that Stalin had invaded

[Endymion]

Hey, it's your analogy.

I explained what I meant by it TWICE, if you're too stupid to understand that it's your problem mate.

I hadn't realised that the Great Hunger occurred during WWII, in a nation that Stalin had invaded

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.

[JonS]

Maybe, but your explanation is moronic. Even when you repeat it. It's also dishonest - you want to ignore the major flaws in your analogy by making the facile claim "they'll both kill you!" (despite it being probable that neither will) presumably to suggest that Hitler and Stalin were just as bad as each other, then in the very next line you make a direct comparison between Hitler and Stalin in an attempt to show one was worse than the other. Which is it. Are they - malaria/cholera or Stalin/Hitler, your choice - the same, or different.

If you wanted to compare "achievements"

I can understand why YOU would want to do that, you've got nothing else to offer, but why on earth would I? It has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Your panties got bunched around your axle when I said that Allies fought a defensive war. That is true. They did fight a defensive war. Counting cold noses has nothing to do with that simple point.

Look, I get that Poland ended up holding the poo covered end of the stick in WWII. Sucks to be you. Poland got malaria after suffering a bad case of cholera. Bad luck.

You need to realise, though, that Poland's experience wasn't universal, AND that 45 years of Soviet rule in Poland was better than 45 years of hypothetical Nazi rule would have been. A LOT better.

Last edited by Endymion: stop editing your posts

rofl

[JonS]

Oh, and we're getting into comedy gold now!

If you wanted to compare "achievements" by both dictators then count all of it. Before and after the war.

Fair enough ... I guesssss

But, wait. Wasn't it you who said

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.

Why yes. Yes I think it was you.

Why is it, Endymion, that you go to any lengths to make Russia look worse, ignoring any mitigation, and yet simultaneously strive to rehabilitate Hitler. Hmm? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Endymion]

Your panties got bunched around your axle when I said that Allies fought a defensive war.

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.

Counting cold noses has nothing to do with that simple point.

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.

AND that 45 years of Soviet rule in Poland was better than 45 years of hypothetical Nazi rule would have been. A LOT better.

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?

Last edited by Endymion: stop editing your posts

failed to see the other part?

...after someone replies to make you look better. It really doesn't.

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.

Why yes. Yes I think it was you.

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.

Why is it, Endymion, that you go to any lengths to make Russia look worse, ignoring any mitigation

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.

and yet simultaneously strive to rehabilitate Hitler. Hmm? Enquiring minds want to know.

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.

[Sublime]

Well, I guess it is threads like this one why the forum rules for the general discussion forum say that political discussions about ww2 are to be avoided. Maybe we should have such a rule in the CMx2 forum too.

Lol I didn't know that was a rule. Hmm. In fact now that I think about it, I don't think I ever actually looked at the forum rules in detail...

C3K - The frontier dispositions... Thats why I said though I don't believe Suvorov I believe the Soviets may have had some naughtiness in mind. On the other hand, maybe it was just idiocy? Wouldn't be the first time commanders relied on an idiotic plan...

[JonS]

After repeatedly saying that both were murderous bastards of the same calibre?

You don't believe that. Not really. I mean, surely you can't. Not after you've repeatedly asserted that I think Stalin was a "good guy," despite, you know, never having saying that

I do think he was the saviour of Europe though. Not alone, of course, but Russia did do some pretty heavy lifting. Bad people sometimes do good things. That doesn't make them good people. It just means the good things they did were, well, good.

[JonS]

C3K - The frontier dispositions... That's why I said though I don't believe Suvorov I believe the Soviets may have had some naughtiness in mind. On the other hand, maybe it was just idiocy? Wouldn't be the first time commanders relied on an idiotic plan ...

Glantz has some pretty trenchant views on this, and they aren't complimentary towards the "Russia was going to attack" meme. I trust Glantz. I don't trust Suvorov.

[Sgt Joch]

ok, maybe we could all chill a bit?

I think we all agree that even though Stalin was the lesser of two weevils, he was still evil.

A good friend of my father, now deceased, was a jew from Poland who survived the camps as a teenager and emigrated to Canada in the 50s. He had nothing good to say about either Nazis or communists.

[Endymion]

You don't believe that. Not really. I mean, surely you can't.

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.

I do think he was the saviour of Europe though. Not alone, of course, but Russia did do some pretty heavy lifting. Bad people sometimes do good things. That doesn't make them good people. It just means the good things they did were, well, good.

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.

[Nidan1]

Endymion....who are you quoting in your replies?

There is a quote feature in this forum that displays the name of the person you are quoting...it makes it so much easier to follow a thread if you use this feature.

BTW, although this has been an interesting exchange, I think you all have beaten this dead horse enough.

[agusto]

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.

That would make an excellent background for a combat mission game!

[BLSTK]

Well, I guess it is threads like this one why the forum rules for the general discussion forum say that political discussions about ww2 are to be avoided. Maybe we should have such a rule in the CMx2 forum too.

There's nothing wrong with getting political. It's getting personal that creates problems. Clearly here the gloves are off.

[Aragorn2002]

That would make an excellent background for a combat mission game!

Read the Red Gambit series by Colin Gee. Stalin attacks what's left of Western Europe in the summer of 1945. Historical fiction at it's best.

[Aragorn2002]

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.

The man is right of course.

[Redwolf]

FWIW after making it all the way through I think it's crap toward the end. I don't think it invalidates the whole production but there.

[Tarquelne]

FWIW after making it all the way through I think it's crap toward the end. I don't think it invalidates the whole production but there.

I agree completely. For some reason wargamers don't make the best disputants.

But what did you think of the TV show?

[JonS]

So by that logic when two rabid dogs bite each other and one wins, he becomes the good guy?

So, Endymion. Is there a reason you aren't reading the posts you're quoting?

You're not even straw-manning here. You instead seem to be arguing with an imaginary friend, since your "responses" are in no way responding to what is being written. Hopefully this approach is amusing for you.

[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.