Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Putin plans to rig election
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Pages: 1, 2
The Standard Deviant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2219492,00.html

QUOTE
The Kremlin is planning to rig the results of Russia's parliamentary elections on Sunday by forcing millions of public sector workers across the country to vote, the Guardian has learned.

Local administration officials have called in thousands of staff on their day off in an attempt to engineer a massive and inflated victory for President Vladimir Putin and his United Russia party. Voters are being pressured to vote for United Russia or risk losing their jobs, their accommodation or bonuses, the Guardian has been told in numerous interviews with byudzhetniki (public sector workers), students and ordinary citizens.


It seems the the Russians have always got a raw deal.
grey boy
Raw deal?
I thought they built a worker's paradise?
absinthist
Farce continues…

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/disp…ory_id=10217312
hobgoblin
But at least we now have stability in what once was the Soviet Union, and we have a loyal friend and ally in the war against terrorism. So what is the majority of Russian are getting poorer under Putin, just make sure the media keep showing us the small amount of Russians who are doing well under Putin.

Anyway, he wears nice suits, looks good on camera and has nice table manners, so he can't be all that bad.
absinthist
Who's not a drinker, he's a stinker. And a legalized murderer.

Russians, if accepting being under dictatorship, are in strong favour of getting rid of the scumbag, but cannot do nothing about. There is no stability, Russia is boiling and only the real coup d'etat can bring peace.

Slava Rosiji bez Putinu! Hopefully, they will find their way in Europe.
speedle
He's a totalitarian asswipe who should be consigned to piloting a garbage scow. We apparently need to get out of Iraq and start up the cold war machinery again just to keep pace.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Nov 30 2007, 12:00 PM) *

Russians, if accepting being under dictatorship, are in strong favour of getting rid of the scumbag, but cannot do nothing about.


Where do get that idea from?

The majority of Russians do not want rid of Putin, he may be a scumbag, but he is a popular scumbag. Putin's approval rating fluctuate between 65% and 75%. That hardly suggests a desire amongst the Russian people for a coup d'etat. The bulk of the United Russia party's popular support is because of the popularity of Putin. He is popular because he is seen as being strong, nationalistic, charismatic, and not afraid to stand up for Russia. Being a murderous, gangster, scumbag doesn't necessarily mean that the public will dislike you. Never underestimate human beings willingness to support and follow a scumbag if he is a strong scumbag and they think he is on their side.

The Russians certainly don't want to get rid of Putin, even if we think they ought to.
Tibro
Don't forget that Putin has played a strong hand with Russia's fuel resources of oil and natural gas. His maneuvers with the Russian fuel industry coupled with rising prices has served to increase Russia's influence on European policies. Making Russia stronger makes Putin more popular in the eyes of most Russians.
speedle
If less popular with the likes of us.
Tibro
The pain of it is felt far more in Europe than it is in America. In fact, it even extends to nuclear fuel. It's one of the trump cards that Putin holds, and holds it so that Europe plainly sees that he's holding it. When the pipeline to the Ukraine was shut off it was a message for Europe. Russians love him for demanding that level of respect from Europe. More recently he's been pretty successful in standing down the Americans on their plans to place new missile bases and radar in central Europe. Russians admire a leader that has them playing tough with the big boys.
Jaded Prole
If he wants to learn about election rigging, he can always consult his American friends.
absinthist
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 2 2007, 11:53 AM) *

Where do get that idea from?


From these Russians, and Ukrainians as well for that matter I have recently spoken to.
speedle
Sadly, GW will not remind them of why they lost the Cold War.
Tibro
Because staking too much money on the military and its futile operations eviscerates a national economy, you mean? Dubya missed school the decades that was being taught over there. Now he has to be home-schooled in it.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 2 2007, 11:08 PM) *

QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 2 2007, 11:53 AM) *

Where do get that idea from?


From these Russians, and Ukrainians as well for that matter I have recently spoken to.


The people you spoke to must then have been from the sensible minority who do not want Putin. A 65% plus, public approval rating is something that our Western leaders would give their eye-teeth for.

Its always dangerous to judge the wishes of a nation by (I am making a presumption here) the views of educated, liberal folk from that nation.

Educated, rational people generally make up a very small proportion of the public support for any leader. The uneducated masses matter much more to political leaders (in terms of support) than the educated.
Selmac
That's very true, and explains a lot about our leaders.
traineraz
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 3 2007, 02:17 PM) *

A 65% plus, public approval rating is something that our Western leaders would give their eye-teeth for.

Bush offered his wisdom teeth, but . . . No, that one's too easy.
hobgoblin
The assumption that the populations of nations are generally morally righteous and good-willed, and that nations with strong, cruel, hard leaders, do not in actual fact want these cruel leaders is not borne out in reality. Very often these leaders are a product of the mind-set of that nation at that time and in actual fact represent the general feeling in the nation.

A prime example of this in history was Hitler who, rather than leading an otherwise kind, right-thinking German people down his harsh path, was actually a product of German nationalism, and represented (granted in probably a more extreme form) the mind-set of the nation at that time. The German people wanted him as their leader.

Putin may be a nasty piece of work (although not in the same league of nastiness as Hitler), but the Russian people want him because he represents what they feel and what they want Russia to aspire to.
traineraz
And if they wanted Sharia law, would that be OK too?

Or worse, if they wanted Shania Twain? <shudder>
hobgoblin
QUOTE(traineraz @ Dec 4 2007, 06:47 PM) *

And if they wanted Sharia law, would that be OK too?


I never said that because a particular nation want a vicious leader or extreme regime that it is OK.

It is just a fact of life that citizens of nations do not automatically want what others consider to be fair-minded leaders that respect the rights of others. Far too often the false assumption is made that nations who have nasty bastards as their leaders really want rid of these leaders, when often that type of leader is what that nation actually wants.

That doesn't make it OK, I never said it did.
traineraz
And yet you argue that Sudan's leadership is illegitimate and they were "wrong" to punish Gibbons.

Pick just one side of the fence, OK? You can't have it both ways. Either people have the government they want/deserve, or they don't.
speedle
Hey, some people think Shania is hot. evill.gif
hobgoblin
QUOTE(traineraz @ Dec 5 2007, 05:55 PM) *

And yet you argue that Sudan's leadership is illegitimate and they were "wrong" to punish Gibbons.

Pick just one side of the fence, OK? You can't have it both ways. Either people have the government they want/deserve, or they don't.


There is no conflict in what I am saying.

Just because the majority Arab section of the Sudanese seem to be in favour of their government, that still doesn't mean the government is legitimate and not a genocidal regime. Certainly the millions of non-Arab Sudanese displaced and starving and the hundreds of thousands murdered, do not deserve this government. This government is no more legitimate than the Nazi government of Germany.

Even if a government has majority support, that doesn't mean that it should be allowed the right to make and enforce any laws they like (even if the majority do not seem to disapprove of these laws). Even if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland, it would still have been right to declare war on him in order to get rid of his nasty regime (even though his regime had the support of the German people).

Sudan's government is a nasty piece of work that needs to be removed (regardless of what level of public support it has), and they clearly punished Ms Gibbons, not because she had broken any law, but because they used her to make a political point.

How you can sit there and even consider that this nasty genocidal regime should have the right to even breathe, let alone lock up British citizens just to make a political point, I really do not know.
traineraz
Who are you to decide for another nation what their leaders should do within their boundaries?
hobgoblin
QUOTE(traineraz @ Dec 5 2007, 06:51 PM) *

Who are you to decide for another nation what their leaders should do within their boundaries?


When another nation starts to commit genocide do you think we should all stand by, wringing our hands saying "Its their country, who are we to decide what they should do within their boundaries?".

Like fuck we should.
traineraz
It doesn't seem that either of our governments has desired to do anything else when it comes to Sudan, or any other country where there aren't resources we want.

So, in following our respective leaders' example, I guess the answer is yes.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 5 2007, 01:49 PM) *

Certainly the millions of non-Arab Sudanese displaced and starving and the hundreds of thousands murdered, do not deserve this government. This government is no more legitimate than the Nazi government of Germany.


Actually the Nazi government was far more legitimate. Germany felt like crap after WWI and the populace was miserable. Hitler was the first person to unite the people behind a common proud cause. Unfortunately that cause was pure evil.

By contrast, Sudan's "President" Al-Bashir overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government via military coup, dissolved all political parties, took control of the press, and forced Sharia upon everyone. He's nothing more than a petty dictator who has enabled genocide. His "law" is not legitimate, at least not for anyone who believes in democratic values. I'm still shocked that anyone would say that Sudan's "law" should be respected as if it were the law of any other country.

Imagine if Donald Rumsfeld had overthrown the government, disbanded Congress and the Senate, eliminated legitimate elections, shut down the press and armed a militia which then went on to slaughter everyone who belonged to a certain ethnic group. That is no more legitimate than if I were to declare myself boss at my job and fire everyone I didn't like and kill all those who dissented, and then called what I did "the law".
absinthist
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 5 2007, 10:49 AM) *

Even if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland, it would still have been right to declare war on him in order to get rid of his nasty regime (even though his regime had the support of the German people).


If Hitler hadn't invaded us and listened to what Himmler, Göring, or Hess or Speer, plus the generals were advocating back then and later in 1942, Third Reich together with Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus would have invaded USSR and prolly won. I am not sure if after then you would be willing to declare war on any regime thus created.
speedle
Um, I think not. Or rather, I mean to say, yes we would have. Perhaps even more so.
absinthist
That war if occurred would be stupid, you would get no profits, no benefits and you would thank us for sorting the Reds out, as you had to in 1920. The Third Reich would collapse in 70's I believe, whereas Baltic states would get federated under Poland just as it was planned in 1939 and was on it good tracks.
speedle
Well, I have to admit I don't know enough about history (my own country, that is) to seriously argue the point. However, what you're proposing just doesn't sound reasonable, knowing what I do about US history of the time, and the relationship with Great Britain. I'm assuming that in your alternate history there is still the relentless attack on London?
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 5 2007, 08:14 PM) *


If Hitler hadn't invaded us and listened to what Himmler, Göring, or Hess or Speer, plus the generals were advocating back then and later in 1942, Third Reich together with Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus would have invaded USSR and prolly won. I am not sure if after then you would be willing to declare war on any regime thus created.


When Britain declared war on Germany, Britain was declaring war on a nation that had stronger military might than herself. Why? Because it was the right thing to do.

As to your point, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland, the moment he invaded Denmark, Norway, Finland or France, Britain would have declared war. Do you really think that Britain would have ignored any actions Hitler would take against his other neighbours? If he had waited until 1942 before invading anybody and then invaded Poland, then yes Britain would have declared war on him regardless of his might. Britain didn't declare war on Germany because she thought she had a good chance of beating him, she declared war on Germany because it was the right and honourable thing to do.

The moment Hitler set foot on your country's soil (be it 1939 or 1942), no matter how powerful he had become, Britain would have declared war, no question about that.


absinthist
You should know that Hitler and Germans had great respect for Great Britain and never considered to attack them in the first place, also, it was one of the reasons at Dunkirk none of them had been slaughtered which is still regarded as miracle that they have survived. We have had a series of lecture on that aspect of WWII as it it as fascinating as Hess' landing in Scotland or Monte Cassino brawl.

Obviously, it is the alternate history that could have happened and might brought about more good than harm than we have suffered from during the factual conflict and what was initiated in the Great War.

Allies change, so I would not be so certain whether UK would stand for U.S. and vice versa if some crucial happenings had taken place. Being deadly enemies didn't prevent Ribbentrop and Molotov from signing the alliance, wasn't it? It is about politics and cold calculations, not friendship or anything else.

History is written by the victors, they have won that game and thus we have what we have, whereas back in the 30's we could have made it better for all of us.
absinthist
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 5 2007, 01:23 PM) *

The moment Hitler set foot on your country's soil (be it 1939 or 1942), no matter how powerful he had become, Britain would have declared war, no question about that.


It was in 1939, not in 1942 FYI. Britain and France declared war in writing only but did nothing but for protecting their asses and borders, hence that period is referred to as "Strange war". They have got seriously worried when Blizkrieg moved to Scandinavia and started threathening both nations. And at the times, German army was not powerful as you might hear, just the usual rebuilt army after Great War with strong panzers and Luftwaffe, nothing else.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 5 2007, 09:24 PM) *

You should know that Hitler and Germans had great respect for Great Britain and never considered to attack them in the first place,…

Obviously, it is the alternate history that could have happened and might brought about more good than harm than we have suffered from during the factual conflict and what was initiated in the Great War.

Allies change, so I would not be so certain whether UK would stand for U.S. and vice versa if some crucial happenings had taken place.

…It is about politics and cold calculations, not friendship or anything else.


How can you say that Hitler not being stopped would have brought more good than harm? Tell that to 6 million dead Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, disabled people etc.

Hitler may well have respected Britain, but we saw him for the nasty, vicious little scumbag that he was. We would have shoved his respect up his nasty little asshole on the point of a British bayonet (which is pretty much what we did anyway, with some help from our friends).

Britain could have done the cowardly thing and not stepped in to do the honourable thing. When Britain stepped in she did so with odds against her. Britain did not know that the USA would be joining the fight later on, so Britain stepped in against a much stronger opponent, even though she could have saved her own neck and looked the other way.

If it was about cold calculations and nothing else then why didn't Britain just form a pact with Hitler (who as you say respected Britain) and kept out of it to save her own skin? Britain did not gain financially from the war, the war cost us dear.

Allies may change, but there is no way that Britain would have allied itself with that limp-dicked, intellectually mediocre, nasty, vicious little bully called Hitler. Him and his kind were amongst the lowest form of vermin ever to crawl out from under a stone.
Donnie Darko
The idea that more good than harm could have come from an alternate reality where Hitler listened to his advisers is preposterous. The Reich could have stayed entirely within their own boundaries and it would have done more harm than good. The Reich could have not murdered a single person and they would have done more harm than good.
Tibro
QUOTE
she declared war on Germany because it was the right and honourable thing to do.
In light of her shame from being a signatory to the Munich Accord?
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 5 2007, 09:31 PM) *

QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 5 2007, 01:23 PM) *

The moment Hitler set foot on your country's soil (be it 1939 or 1942), no matter how powerful he had become, Britain would have declared war, no question about that.


It was in 1939, not in 1942 FYI. Britain and France declared war in writing only but did nothing but for protecting their asses and borders, hence that period is referred to as "Strange war". They have got seriously worried when Blizkrieg moved to Scandinavia and started threathening both nations. And at the times, German army was not powerful as you might hear, just the usual rebuilt army after Great War with strong panzers and Luftwaffe, nothing else.


Of course I know it was 1939, I said 1942 to refer to your speculation that Hitler may have waited until 1942 if he took the advice of Himmler etc.

As to us 'protecting our asses'. Fuck you! We could have looked the other way and not declared war at all when Hitler invaded YOUR country. Instead we put ourselves directly in the firing line because it was the right and honourable thing to do.

As to the German army not being as powerful as 'you might hear', is this more historical revisionism? Next you'll be telling us that that vicious, ugly, sexually impotent (poor old Eva Braun) little bully called Hitler wasn't actually all that bad.
absinthist
There would have been no alliance with Third Reich and UK, because there would be no need to do so.

The worst harm done to our Continent was the Great War which was unnecessary and could be prevented but such were the times and it had to occur sooner or later. Everything that could have been done for good, was to be done just then in the 20's. If we (European nations) got rid of the Reds completely, there would be no Third Reich as there would be no NSDAP and even little Adolf would not be so disilussioned with the Great War's outcome.

It is not about stopping but preventing from being, it is of course part of our beloved (especially here) conspiracy theories, but if everything went well, we would have got peace already in the 30's if Europe had looked quite differently back then. And Great Britain would not have to engage in any conflicts only prolly these within it, but minor ones.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Tibro @ Dec 5 2007, 09:48 PM) *

QUOTE
she declared war on Germany because it was the right and honourable thing to do.
In light of her shame from being a signatory to the Munich Accord?


That was indeed shameful appeasement.

But at least Britain and France stepped up afterwards when the accord was broken.
absinthist
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Dec 5 2007, 01:53 PM) *

As to us 'protecting our asses'. Fuck you! We could have looked the other way and not declared war at all when Hitler invaded YOUR country. Instead we put ourselves directly in the firing line because it was the right and honourable thing to do.

As to the German army not being as powerful as 'you might hear', is this more historical revisionism?


It is not revisionist to say both of you paid no fuckin' attention to the alliance you have signed with Poland, so it was and no matter how hard you will try that story won't be changed that easily, so do not bring such bullshit as "standing in the firing line" as you were sitting on your asses and doing NOTHING.

UK's army at the time was more powerful than Germany's because you are still forgetting when Hitler was able to start rising in power, whilst you already were a POWER; if you weren't, Third Reich would prolly start their European tour with Britain.

We are not discussing here who was worse in the heyday. Both Stalin and Hitler were murderers, just as Putin is, no doubt about it. We are discussing decisions that could have changed the Continent.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 5 2007, 10:02 PM) *


If we (European nations) got rid of the Reds completely, there would be no Third Reich as there would be no NSDAP and even little Adolf would not be so disilussioned with the Great War's outcome.


Nonsense. Hitler's invasion and his nasty empire has very little to do with the existence of Communism.

Hitler was not on a crusade to rid the world of Communism, he was a power-hungry, nasty, little facist who wanted to create an empire where white 'aryans' (even though he showed no understanding of what Aryan actually meant) dominated and 'non-aryans' were either eliminated or enslaved. Hitler and his Nazi boot-boys were the most horrible form of filth ever to come out of Europe and it was a great triumph for humanity when the Nazi vermin was put down. It's a shame he didn't have the courage to face the Russian guns when they got to Berlin but instead hid in a hole like the rat he was and topped himself rather than stand and fight.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 5 2007, 10:12 PM) *


We are not discussing here who was worse in the heyday. Both Stalin and Hitler were murderers, just as Putin is, no doubt about it. We are discussing decisions that could have changed the Continent.


Listen pal, I'm discussing the points you made. If you don't want to have your points examined then don't express them.

As for Putin compared to Hitler, Putin may be a nasty guy, but the last time I heard he hadn't gassed 6 million Jews, or started an official euthanasia programme for the disabled. Putin may not be a nice guy but he's not in the same league of vile pond-life as Hitler.

Churchill was very anti-Communist, when Hitler invaded to Soviet Union he said, "If Hitler were to invade Hell, I should find occasion to make a favourable reference to the Devil,".
absinthist
Hitler was not fascist. He was first National Socialist, later the faithful follower of Hitlerism, religion he had created.

Because of Lebensraum he was interested in natural resources to be found on the way to USSR and far beyond (Ural was final destination). It was an aspect of economy, the other aspect concerned strong anti-communism and who had the natural resources and lots of land? The reds! What shall be done? Invade diese verfluchte russische Schweine and get it. There is Poland on my way, Hermann do we have any issue with Polacken? Ahh, Danzig, so off we go, Fall WeiB-Barbarossa-Ural=1000th Year Reich.

Churchill, on the other hand, sold us and others in Yalta, yeah it was very strong anti-communist behaviour.

The fact that Putin's crimes are not revealed, does not make him an angel, either ask Mr. Litvinenko-he tried to reveal them, got poisoned in the UK. Coincidence? Finally, ask Chechnya…
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 5 2007, 10:32 PM) *

Hitler was not fascist. He was first National Socialist, later the faithful follower of Hitlerism, religion he had created.


Facist, national socialist, follower of 'hitlerism', whatever. He was murderous, vicious nasty, racist, genocidal scum nevertheless. In the end he hid in a hole in the ground when his opponents guns got close and killed himself rather than face the music. He was amongst the lowest form of vicious, murderous scum this planet has ever seen.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 5 2007, 10:32 PM) *

The fact that Putin's crimes are not revealed, does not make him an angel, either ask Mr. Litvinenko-he tried to reveal them, got poisoned in the UK. Coincidence? Finally, ask Chechnya…


Of course Litvinenko's death isn't a coincidence and or course Putin's crimes in Chechynya are dreadful, but nevertheless Putin's crimes are pale in comparison with Hitler's crimes against humanity. The murder of six million Jews, as well as gypsies, socialists, trade-unionists, etc., a progamme of euthanasia of disabled people, live vivisection of human beings for 'research purposes' (unless of course you are now going to tell me that Hitler didn't have full knowledge of the death camps and that the numbers of deaths have been greatly executed).

Not forgetting also the 3 million Poles, 2 million of whom were ethnic Poles (remember Mein Kampf declares Slavs to be a subordinated race) killed by Nazi 'special-action' operations. What do you think Hitler meant when he told his SS units going into Poland to "send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish race and language", an order which they eagerly began carrying out. Then of course there were the 1.5 million Poles were shipped of to forced labour camps.

Himmler said, "All Poles will disappear from the world" and "It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles." Poles were all ear-marked for destruction as part of Hitler's 'Final Solution' and plans were drawn up to send 20 million Poles to die in slave labour camps. That's what Hitler's policy of Lebansraum would have meant for Poland, a Poland with no Poles so that his so-called 'Aryans' could move in. If Hitler had his way then you (assuming you are of Polish descent) would not be around today and all the friends, colleagues, family and people you meet who are of Polish descent would also not be around. Hitler considered Poles (and all Slavs) to be 'untermensch' (i.e. sub-human) in the same way that he considered Jews and Gypsies to be 'untermensch', "a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal", that is what he thought of you.

I really am surprised that considering the way your own country suffered under Hitler (a scumbag who despised and wanted to murder you and all of your kind, a twisted sadist who viewed you as lower than animals) that a Pole would be post about Hitler in the way you have done her. In fact there is more criticism of Britain and Churchill in your posts than there is of Hitler. Perhaps you might like to stand on a soap box in front of the Wola massacre memorial and tell people that Hitler wasn't really all that bad afterall?

You have the nerve to criticise Britain, Britain who (along with France) put her very existence on the line to stand by your country. Fuck you!
absinthist
It is not "whatever", Mr. ignorant, I suggest reading some history books. So, if you assume, he was the worst, your favourite pal would be Stalin, good for you, no wonder Winston had shaken hands with that psychopath many a time.

The Slavs genocide was part of a plan but didn't go as it was planned. On the contrary to some other, Poles were fighting the occupant constantly and if it had not been for our involvent in "Battle of England", I am not that sure your pilots would cope with Messerschmitts that easily.

My dear Briton, Poles have lost in IIWW:

-1 million of recruits, 123 thousands of soldiers, 6 millions of citizens

You, on the other hand:

-5 millions 896 thousands of recruits, 265 thousands of soldiers, 92 thousands(!) of citizens (including 30 thousands of trade sailors).

You want the dates? Here you are:

1940, 2nd of May, the British evacuate from Norway,
28th of May-3rd of June-Dunkirk evacuation,
5th of August-
QUOTE
finally
you sign alliance treaty with our government in London and on the 7th of August with De Gaulle and his forces.

The idea of Aryan race has so tremendously changed within 1942-44, that the ideas who was "Untermensch" and who was "Übermensch" was no longer valid, read about Ostlegionen, or ROA.

I suggest you coming to Warsaw and tell these people, who despite all odds survived the Warsaw Uprising, where were those French and British soldiers who as you claim stood by my country. Ask your puppet Churchill what Stalin told him to do that very time and the only army that was willing to help were Hungarians.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 6 2007, 10:40 AM) *


The Slavs genocide was part of a plan but didn't go as it was planned.



If Mr Hitler had suceeded it certainly would have.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 6 2007, 10:40 AM) *

On the contrary to some other, Poles were fighting the occupant constantly and if it had not been for our involvent in "Battle of England", I am not that sure your pilots would cope with Messerschmitts that easily.


That is indeed correct, and for those brave Poles we are indeed indebted.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 6 2007, 10:40 AM) *

My dear Briton, Poles have lost in IIWW:

-1 million of recruits, 123 thousands of soldiers, 6 millions of citizens

You, on the other hand:

-5 millions 896 thousands of recruits, 265 thousands of soldiers, 92 thousands(!) of citizens (including 30 thousands of trade sailors).


It's not a competition about which country lost more citizens. But remember that we could have sat by and not declared war on Germany when he invaded your country. Sadly you did not have a choice, but we did have a choice and we chose not to join the fight.

Despite all the horror Hitler and his scum inflicted on Poland and the rest of Europe your posts seem to suggest at the very least some sort of respect for him and his scum.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 6 2007, 10:40 AM) *
The idea of Aryan race has so tremendously changed within 1942-44, that the ideas who was "Untermensch" and who was "Übermensch" was no longer valid, read about Ostlegionen, or ROA.


The likes of the Ostlegionen were cowardly traitors. Hitler used these scum as cannon fodder. Don't think that just because it was convenient for him to use some turncoat scum as part of Wehrmacht that he had welcomed Slavs into the Aryan fold. He viewed you as sub-human and wanted to eliminate you from the face of the Earth. Hitler and his ideas were responsible for the deliberate murder of many millions of innocent men, women and children, just because they didn't fit his perverted notion of racial superiority. Hitler's ideas were nothing more than nasty, vindictive, prejudice, based on ill-thought out pseudo-science. He was filth, his followers were filth, his ideas were filth, and anyone who has the remotest amount of respect for his ideas is also filth.

I find it almost beyond belief that a Pole such as yourself (I make an assumption here) can make posts that give Hitler such an easy ride, and seem to suggest an underlying respect for him.
absinthist

QUOTE
Sadly you did not have a choice, but we did have a choice and we chose not to join the fight.


Is it a typo or have you just said "not to join the fight" what you actually did in 1939? "Declaration" does not mean "action".

QUOTE
Despite all the horror Hitler and his scum inflicted on Poland and the rest of Europe your posts seem to suggest at the very least some sort of respect for him and his scum.


I, and my Poles will share that feeling, have absolutely no respect for any scumbags trying to enslave us.

QUOTE

The likes of the Ostlegionen were cowardly traitors.


FYI, British fought in Waffen-SS as well, no one ever said that these soldiers were cowards, they were fighting to get rid of the communism from Europe and to keep our nations be at least normal, they were aware Germany is losing the war and hence many of them were having talks with the Allies (Hungarians, Romanians, Russians, etc) and it was the Allies that betrayed them and after the war presented to Stalin and he had no remorse to simply murder them mercilessly when the whole civilized world was looking. Ever heard of General Krasnov, Cossacks-leader or Wlasow?

Third Reich ended more or less in 1946, but we have not won that war because we were enlaved for another 45 years, it is difficult to say what was really worse since we had suffered from both totalitarian regimes, but I can tell you one thing, you were quite safe back then and from 1945 you were not fighting anyone whereas we had to.

I have talked with one WWII veteran not so long time ago and he said there was no difference whether he fought SSman or Soviet (note, I am not using "German" or "Russian" since citizens were not our enemies), he fought for his land and that counted the most, no matter if he was to be criticised for his deeds after the war and stand the test of neverending interrogations and persecutions. Thus as you are critising me for being in favour of alternate history, many out there share since they have survived both occupations and can compare.


hobgoblin
QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 6 2007, 11:48 AM) *

QUOTE
Sadly you did not have a choice, but we did have a choice and we chose not to join the fight.


Is it a typo or have you just said "not to join the fight" what you actually did in 1939? "Declaration" does not mean "action".

Yes it was a typo and you know it. We joined in not too long after our declaration as you well know. What did the other signatories to the Munich Accord do? One of them was busy invading and butchering your countrymen and another sided with him.

Your implication that Britain was a coward is repulsive and factually incorrect. We acted as soon as we had gotten ourselves prepared. It would have been easy to turn a blind eye and not declare war on Germany wouldn't it? But we didn't.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 6 2007, 11:48 AM) *


QUOTE



The likes of the Ostlegionen were cowardly traitors.


FYI, British fought in Waffen-SS as well, no one ever said that these soldiers were cowards, they were fighting to get rid of the communism from Europe and to keep our nations be at least normal,


Any British that fought in the SS were indeed cowardly traitors, vermin, scum of the Earth.

You portray the SS as noble warriors on a crusade to keep Europe free from Communism. That is a load of bullshit. The SS were scum of the very lowest kind, they may have worn smart uniforms but they were scum nevertheless. The SS were the amongst lowest form of murderous vermin that ever walked. Keeping our nations normal? Your notion of a normal obviously includes death camps, racial cleansing, genocide, murdering disabled people, etc. etc. There was nothing 'normal' about what Hitler and the SS wanted. Unless you mean that keeping a nation 'normal' involves murdering anyone deemed 'racially abnormal', 'mentally abnormal', or 'physically abnormal'. If that's your vision of keeping a nation 'normal', then I guess Hitler and the SS indeed try to do this.

QUOTE(absinthist @ Dec 6 2007, 11:48 AM) *


Thus as you are critising me for being in favour of alternate history, many out there share since they have survived both occupations and can compare.


What you are in favour of is a Europe run by the Nazis. A Europe where people are murdered in their millions because they are deemed to be racially impure, a Europe where disabled people are systematically murdered or at least forcibly sterilised.

Yes, sadly there are others around who would share your view, there will always be Nazi sympathisers around.

The world did well to wipe Hitler and his Nazi vermin off the planet.
absinthist
I am NOT saying that both France and Britain I have great respect for were cowards, they simply did nothing when they were asked to do so. Maybe in your history this is not mentioned, but ask any Pole, no matter if he went to AK, AL, or NSZ, or wherever, they will answer you the same-"they did nothing", obviously we cannot blame it on citizens or soldiers alone.

Fuck! Learn something finally, SS is completely different thing than Waffen-SS I have mentioned, so is Gestapo, NKVD, and such. You have different view of Europe, cannot see the Paneuropean idea that would bring Europeans together? (started by Earl Coudenhove Callergi, if you do not know, of British descent as well).

I believe in Europe of the nations and return of ancien regime, if you had forgotten, I am conservative and a monarchist and I am not wondering you might call me a Nazi since I was insulted with much worse invectives and did not paid much attention to them.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.