12 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThe purpose of the exhibit is to educate, not repeat stale propaganda
The purpose of the exhibit is to educate, not repeat stale propaganda. If the British and French had wanted to stop German aggression as early as the Sudetenland crisis (or before in Spain), then they would have had the Soviet Union as a firm ally. Even after the Munich double cross, the Soviets were still attempting to negotiate military assistance to P ...[text shortened]... ed and not as much "fun" as juvenile exhibitions like your post, but hey what are ya gonna do?
so why not educate people about the reasons behind stalin's involvement in the war, and his deeds in poland?
or are you going to pick and choose what to show and what not to show?
If the British and French had wanted to stop German aggression as early as the Sudetenland crisis (or before in Spain), then they would have had the Soviet Union as a firm ally
this is debatable.
Under the circumstances, the Soviets made the best deal they thought they could.
best deal for themselves, they couldn't care less about the poles.
I realize that actual history is a bit more complicated and not as much "fun" as juvenile exhibitions like your post, but hey what are ya gonna do?
I really don't know what you're talking about, but then again, you're famous for pathetic attacks like these.
12 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderwell since you're so fond of statues of dictators why discriminate against hitler?
Last I checked, Hitler was not the leader of an ally of the forces that landed on D-Day. Maybe the pro-fascist history you learned is a bit different.
Maybe the pro-fascist history you learned is a bit different.
and you made this all up on your own, it seems like you really make no effort to distinguish reality from fantasy.
13 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoI just educated you but you're too brainwashed to accept reality.
The purpose of the exhibit is to educate, not repeat stale propaganda[/b]
so why not educate people about the reasons behind stalin's involvement in the war, and his deeds in poland?
or are you going to pick and choose what to show and what not to show?
If the British and French had wanted to stop German aggression as early as the Sudetenl what you're talking about, but then again, you're famous for pathetic attacks like these.
I'll give you a bit more education; when Czechoslovakia was finally completely dismembered by the Nazis in mid 1939, the Poles grabbed a piece of it with German consent. The Soviets were under no moral compulsion to aid the fascist Poles against the Nazis, but they offered to do so because Stalin determined it was in his country's best interest to do so. The Poles refused to accept the idea of Soviet troops entering Poland even in the eventuality of a German invasion. Faced with the certainty of a German attack on Poland, Stalin cut a deal which moved his border hundreds of kilometers westward. This almost certainly saved Moscow in 1941.
A smart man; to criticize him for not acting in an altruistic manner as head of state is just childish.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by generalissimoPlease have someone explain my post to you as you seem too incredibly stupid to grasp the rather uncomplicated distinction between a leader of an ally and the leader of an enemy.
well since you're so fond of statues of dictators why discriminate against hitler?
[b]Maybe the pro-fascist history you learned is a bit different.
and you made this all up on your own, it seems like you really make no effort to distinguish reality from fantasy.[/b]
13 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI just educated you but you're too brainwashed to accept reality.
I just educated you but you're too brainwashed to accept reality.
I'll give you a bit more education; when Czechoslovakia was finally completely dismembered by the Nazis in mid 1939, the Poles grabbed a piece of it with German consent. The Soviets were under no moral compulsion to aid the fascist Poles against the Nazis, but they offered to n; to criticize him for not acting in an altruistic manner as head of state is just childish.
well it can't get any more hilarious than this, keep it up, this little tantrum of yours is quite entertaining.
The Soviets were under no moral compulsion to aid the fascist Poles against the Nazis, but they offered to do so because Stalin determined it was in his country's best interest to do so. The Poles refused to accept the idea of Soviet troops entering Poland even in the eventuality of a German invasion. Faced with the certainty of a German attack on Poland, Stalin cut a deal which moved his border hundreds of kilometers westward. This almost certainly saved Moscow in 1941.
good to know you enjoy sharing what you learned in school yesterday, but whats your point exactly?
do any of these justify the ridiculous idea of having statues of stalin?
A smart man; to criticize him for not acting in an altruistic manner as head of state is just childish.
and you call me brainwashed, LOL, go figure.
edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
yep, stalin was certainly altruistic.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderhey don't get angry just because I exposed your inability to reason properly (which to be honest wasn't very hard considering your posts make that quite clear).
Please have someone explain my post to you as you seem too incredibly stupid to grasp the rather uncomplicated distinction between a leader of an ally and the leader of an enemy.
btw, do you have any evidence that I learned "pro-fascist history"? well, I guess not, but I won't bother you with further questioning, I don't want you to embarrass yourself even more by saying something stupid.
13 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoYou're an imbecile. I never said Stalin was altruistic; in fact, I said quite the opposite. But neither was Churchill, FDR or Truman altruistic when it came to acting in their nation's best interest. The reason why Stalin should have a statute at the exhibit has already been stated by the Director of the Memorial; please go back and read it. You and some others have been trying to say Stalin shouldn't have a statute there for reasons that are infantile. Most of the others don't seem as incapable as you are to grasp the rather obvious points made here.
I just educated you but you're too brainwashed to accept reality.[/b]
well it can't get any more hilarious than this, keep it up, this little tantrum of yours is quite entertaining.
The Soviets were under no moral compulsion to aid the fascist Poles against the Nazis, but they offered to do so because Stalin determined it was in his countr ...[text shortened]...
edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
yep, stalin was certainly altruistic.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by generalissimoLMAO!!! I'm sure you actually are deluded enough to believe that your posts here exhibit reasoning of the highest order.
hey don't get angry just because I exposed your inability to reason properly (which to be honest wasn't very hard considering your posts make that quite clear).
btw, do you have any evidence that I learned "pro-fascist history"? well, I guess not, but I won't bother you with further questioning, I don't want you to embarrass yourself even more by saying something stupid.
You have posted here praising both Pinochet and Franco. They were fascists. Hence, you are "pro-fascist". Q.E.D
13 Jun 10
1 edit
Having a statue of Stalin alone is one thing; but to have a statue of him and all the other allied leaders seems to me to be far less objectionable. Stalin was a bad person; but not so much for his conduct during WWII (yes, Katyn was bad, but in the context of all that happened during WWII, not close to the worst).
As for his deal with Hitler, after the Allies left Austria and Czechoslovakia in the lurch as they did, I hardly blame Stalin for being somewhat skeptical of the Allies' willingness and ability to stop Hitler over the Polish question. Hitler probably would have invaded Poland with or without the deal with Stalin (although the deal ended all doubt); and so, in retrospect, the deal with Hitler turned out to have been a tactical success for Stalin and in some sense, a tactical disaster for Hitler. The battle for Poland was a great German success in the field, but gained Hitler two western enemies in UK and France and gained the Russians half of Poland without firing a shot.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by sh76Actually some shots were fired; the Red Army lost 996 men killed or missing and 2400 wounded in the Polish operation in September 1939 according to Chris Bellamy's Absolute War .
Having a statue of Stalin alone is one thing; but to have a statue of him and all the other allied leaders seems to me to be far less objectionable. Stalin was a bad person; but not so much for his conduct during WWII (yes, Katyn was bad, but in the context of all that happened during WWII, not close to the worst).
As for his deal with Hitler, after the Alli ...[text shortened]... western enemies in UK and France and gained the Russians half of Poland without firing a shot.
14 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're an imbecile
You're an imbecile. I never said Stalin was altruistic; in fact, I said quite the opposite. But neither was Churchill, FDR or Truman altruistic when it came to acting in their nation's best interest. The reason why Stalin should have a statute at the exhibit has already been stated by the Director of the Memorial; please go back and read it. You and some the others don't seem as incapable as you are to grasp the rather obvious points made here.
and my dad can beat up your dad, na na na.
You and some others have been trying to say Stalin shouldn't have a statute there for reasons that are infantile
if you say so.
Most of the others don't seem as incapable as you are to grasp the rather obvious points made here.
non sequitur.
14 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderLMAO!!! I'm sure you actually are deluded enough to believe that your posts here exhibit reasoning of the highest order.
LMAO!!! I'm sure you actually are deluded enough to believe that your posts here exhibit reasoning of the highest order.
You have posted here praising both Pinochet and Franco. They were fascists. Hence, you are "pro-fascist". Q.E.D
grow up.
You have posted here praising both Pinochet and Franco. They were fascists. Hence, you are "pro-fascist". Q.E.D
now this is certainly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. By using your logic we could also say Im a communist because I praised stalin's success in the industrialization of russia. But then again this simplistic thinking of yours isn't at all surprising, considering you're notorious for being unable to reason properly.
Furthermore, how does this prove I somehow learned "pro-fascist history"?