77 years of the scariest speech by a government official in history

[Tim the plumber]

See, I knew we'd arrive here sooner or later!
You think I prefer communism, ergo I must be a communist.
And that's all you have, like every other red-baiting troll chef on the planet.

If you are not sympathetic to communism why do you get so upset at me pointing out that they are worse than the Nazis?

 

[Rostocker]

Yeah it is.
Person A is describing a monstrous human being, and you reduce it to a comparison between cars, or beer, saying "this beer has more alcohol" or "this car was much worse", as if to say the other beer isn't so bad, or the other car isn't so dangerous, because the two cars you mentioned are more dangerous.

You have company, you know that, you have the kind of company that will cheerfully accept an extreme as a bulwark against another extreme. I'm sure you and @Rostocker would find each other's arguments compatible.

Why do you Link me to this bullshit?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I find it awkward that we seemingly split hairs on how relative evil one ruthless leader was in comparison to another. This is made worse by framing the discussion with "77 years of the scariest speech by a government official in history," that is also a bit argumentative when considering all that was not just said but done because of.

There was a time we could be critical of Hitler and that brand of nationalism that resulted in such horror, but still learn from history as that is the point of the academia.

Similar story with Stalin and how a call under the guise of the people ended up a tyrannical totalitarian regime responsible for another set of horrors. Similar story with Pol Pot and how that call to power resulted in yet another set of horrors.

Apart from all of this what history should have taught everyone, beyond all doubt, is on a long enough timeline unchecked market economics is just as destructive as unchecked planned economics. At the same time and on a long enough timeline minimal government (or no government) is just as destructive as any flavor of totalitarianism.

There is a real reason most western and modern governments and economies have resorted to mixed models and hybrids of aged ideas we talk about. The history here should be the barometer of the concerns going too far any direction to an extreme. We have numerous examples where in the end is is the people that suffer and some of these examples we split hairs on are the extremes of human horrors under a given method of governance and/or economics.

As for what is worst between communism and Nazism... I would offer that debate misses the point.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If you are not sympathetic to communism why do you get so upset at me pointing out that they are worse than the Nazis?

Because once any entity reaches a certain level, comparisons of which is worse are stupid.
Is minus 50 degrees worse than minus 35 degrees?
Is Fentanyl "worse than" just injecting ordinary heroin?
Is molesting a nine year old worse than molesting a ten year old?
Is Jim Jones and The People's Temple worse than David Koresh and the Branch Davidians?

What is the real payoff in pointing that out unsolicited on a thread about Hitler?
Well clearly for YOU and others like you, the payoff is to inoculate your love of fascism, and as if to prove that, you instinctively punt to red-baiting.
Enough of your apologetics.
At least your buddies have the balls to just admit they love fascism instead of pewling around trying to compare dick sizes of lesser monsters. You are the child of a lesser god and you're the one who is upset that your god is being castigated.
Go to him now, seek him in his charred bunker, beseech the Kremlin to release his brain, so that you may fill yours with his dead rhetoric of a master race, another thing which your posting history occasionally alludes to.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Why do you Link me to this bullshit?

Because the odor of bovine fecal ejecta in your posts reminded me of Tim the Plumber's posts.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I find it awkward that we seemingly split hairs on how relative evil one ruthless leader was in comparison to another. This is made worse by framing the discussion with "77 years of the scariest speech by a government official in history," that is also a bit argumentative when considering all that was not just said but done because of.

There was a time we could be critical of Hitler and that brand of nationalism that resulted in such horror, but still learn from history as that is the point of the academia.

Similar story with Stalin and how a call under the guise of the people ended up a tyrannical totalitarian regime responsible for another set of horrors. Similar story with Pol Pot and how that call to power resulted in yet another set of horrors.

Apart from all of this what history should have taught everyone, beyond all doubt, is on a long enough timeline unchecked market economics is just as destructive as unchecked planned economics. At the same time and on a long enough timeline minimal government (or no government) is just as destructive as any flavor of totalitarianism.

There is a real reason most western and modern governments and economies have resorted to mixed models and hybrids of aged ideas we talk about. The history here should be the barometer of the concerns going too far any direction to an extreme. We have numerous examples where in the end is is the people that suffer and some of these examples we split hairs on are the extremes of human horrors under a given method of governance and/or economics.

As for what is worst between communism and Nazism... I would offer that debate misses the point.

THANK YOU. Authoritarianism is evil, whether left or right, it is still authoritarianism.

 

[Rostocker]

Because the odor of bovine fecal ejecta in your posts reminded me of Tim the Plumber's posts.

You should stop to smoke cow shit, it appears to overwhelm your senses

 

[Tim the plumber]

You should stop to smoke cow shit, it appears to overwhelm your senses

I think he is just tro;;ing.

 

[Tigerace117]

Stalin was much worse than Hitler.

Nope. As shown by the fact that the majority of even those who had experienced the worst repressions of the Stalinist regime largely fought loyally against the Nazis.

 

[Roadvirus]

Stalin was much worse than Hitler.

Stalin and Hitler had a bet going to see who could kill the most people during their separate dictatorships.

 

[Rostocker]

Nope. As shown by the fact that the majority of even those who had experienced the worst repressions of the Stalinist regime largely fought loyally against the Nazis.

Tell that the baltics who still cekebrate the SS today

 

[swing_voter]

It wasn't only the Jews. Hitler's plan that he laid out in "Mein Kampf" was to enslave the Slavic race. This would include Poles I assume.

The slaves were to work the new territories Germany captured.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tell that the baltics who still cekebrate the SS today

Oh, I know all about the mouth breathers who still celebrate their local collaborators. On the other hand, they didn’t experience the worst of Stalinist oppression.

And even in the Baltics there were plenty of guerrillas who tied down plenty of German troops.

 

[Rostocker]

Oh, I know all about the mouth breathers who still celebrate their local collaborators. On the other hand, they didn’t experience the worst of Stalinist oppression.

And even in the Baltics there were plenty of guerrillas who tied down plenty of German troops.

They were busy hunting jews. Same as the dutch and french. Its amusing.

 

[Tigerace117]

☃

They were busy hunting jews. Same as the dutch and french. Its amusing.

What‘s really amusing is how loudly Germany screamed once the Allies started pummeling their cities into rubble.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Nope. As shown by the fact that the majority of even those who had experienced the worst repressions of the Stalinist regime largely fought loyally against the Nazis.

I see you have little idea about WWII in the east.

Stalin's quote was that it took a brave man to be a coward in the Russian army.

Many many men were driven into battle with the NKVD having machine guns behind them to make sure they advanced.

Many many men in penal battalions were used in mine clearance work where they were forced to run around in mine fields untill there were no mines left.

Just because the slave society that was Soviet Russia could force people to do things does not make it less bad. Stalin killed far more than Hitler with his mass starvation, purges, goolags and all the rest. Thus more bad.

 

[Tigerace117]

I see you have little idea about WWII in the east.

Stalin's quote was that it took a brave man to be a coward in the Russian army.

Many many men were driven into battle with the NKVD having machine guns behind them to make sure they advanced.

Many many men in penal battalions were used in mine clearance work where they were forced to run around in mine fields untill there were no mines left.

Just because the slave society that was Soviet Russia could force people to do things does not make it less bad. Stalin killed far more than Hitler with his mass starvation, purges, goolags and all the rest. Thus more bad.

Oh look, more spewing of stereotypes. Yawn.

There were no NKVD machine gun positions directly behind the troops. The “barrier troops” operated well behind Soviet lines, patrolling the roads and forests where retreating troops or deserters would likely have wound up. If your claim had been based in fact, there would have been large scale incidents of mutinies or exchanges of fire between NKVD troops and regular army personnel, particularly in 1941 when things were at their worst for the Red Army. No evidence of such incidents actually exists. Try learning some actual history instead of just watching Enemy at the Gates over and over.

The penal battalions, meanwhile, were directly inspired by German formations which already existed. The Soviets did not, in fact, charge soldiers through minefields to clear them like you claim— there is no documented historical evidence to support the idea that it ever actually happened. There is supposedly a quote from Zhukov that the Red Army “attacks as if the minefields weren’t there” but the veracity of it is questionable at best. It also doesn‘t fit with known facts about Red Army doctrine and the manpower situation. Again, try learning actual history, not just regurgitating what you saw in a movie one time.

Again, despite the Holodomor only having been a few years in the past, Ukrainians overwhelmingly fought loyally and well for the Soviet Union. The people who only a few years back were starving en masse due to Soviet policies still largely realized the Nazis were far, far worse and acted accordingly. That tells you all you really need to know about which side was worse on the Eastern Front.

 

[Rostocker]

What‘s really amusing is how loudly Germany screamed once the Allies started pummeling their cities into rubble.

It must bother you alot that 70% of German cities saw not a single bomb. My hometown for example.

 

[Rostocker]

Oh look, more spewing of stereotypes. Yawn.

There were no NKVD machine gun positions directly behind the troops. The “barrier troops” operated well behind Soviet lines, patrolling the roads and forests where retreating troops or deserters would likely have wound up. If your claim had been based in fact, there would have been large scale incidents of mutinies or exchanges of fire between NKVD troops and regular army personnel, particularly in 1941 when things were at their worst for the Red Army. No evidence of such incidents actually exists. Try learning some actual history instead of just watching Enemy at the Gates over and over.

The penal battalions, meanwhile, were directly inspired by German formations which already existed. The Soviets did not, in fact, charge soldiers through minefields to clear them like you claim— there is no documented historical evidence to support the idea that it ever actually happened. There is supposedly a quote from Zhukov that the Red Army “attacks as if the minefields weren’t there” but the veracity of it is questionable at best. It also doesn‘t fit with known facts about Red Army doctrine and the manpower situation. Again, try learning actual history, not just regurgitating what you saw in a movie one time.

Again, despite the Holodomor only having been a few years in the past, Ukrainians overwhelmingly fought loyally and well for the Soviet Union. The people who only a few years back were starving en masse due to Soviet policies still largely realized the Nazis were far, far worse and acted accordingly. That tells you all you really need to know about which side was worse on the Eastern Front.

Ukrainians also loyally kept concentration Camps running and did shit where they found No German willing to do

 

[Tim the plumber]

Oh look, more spewing of stereotypes. Yawn.

There were no NKVD machine gun positions directly behind the troops. The “barrier troops” operated well behind Soviet lines, patrolling the roads and forests where retreating troops or deserters would likely have wound up. If your claim had been based in fact, there would have been large scale incidents of mutinies or exchanges of fire between NKVD troops and regular army personnel, particularly in 1941 when things were at their worst for the Red Army. No evidence of such incidents actually exists. Try learning some actual history instead of just watching Enemy at the Gates over and over.

The penal battalions, meanwhile, were directly inspired by German formations which already existed. The Soviets did not, in fact, charge soldiers through minefields to clear them like you claim— there is no documented historical evidence to support the idea that it ever actually happened. There is supposedly a quote from Zhukov that the Red Army “attacks as if the minefields weren’t there” but the veracity of it is questionable at best. It also doesn‘t fit with known facts about Red Army doctrine and the manpower situation. Again, try learning actual history, not just regurgitating what you saw in a movie one time.

Again, despite the Holodomor only having been a few years in the past, Ukrainians overwhelmingly fought loyally and well for the Soviet Union. The people who only a few years back were starving en masse due to Soviet policies still largely realized the Nazis were far, far worse and acted accordingly. That tells you all you really need to know about which side was worse on the Eastern Front.

800,000 Russians were fighting on the German side during WW2

Ukrainian Insurgent Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Comrade Stalin’s secret prison

Special Facility No.110 – Stalin’s secret prison – wasn’t in remote Siberia, it was just outside Moscow. на русском языке

www.opendemocracy.net

Read some stuff.

 

[Rostocker]

800,000 Russians were fighting on the German side during WW2

Ukrainian Insurgent Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Comrade Stalin’s secret prison

Special Facility No.110 – Stalin’s secret prison – wasn’t in remote Siberia, it was just outside Moscow. на русском языке

www.opendemocracy.net

Read some stuff.

Its not Like He Cares. He has His Agenda and Posts bullshit alot

 

[Emily L]

This is probably the most serious discussion I've ever seen here. It's also one of the most complicated and, frankly, it's over my head.

But I thought it might help to say that I once read (or heard) someone speak about the importance for a society to identify an "ultimate evil" to which all other evil can be compared. Through the years since World War II, most of our society (and much of the world) has settled on giving Adolf Hitler that distinction.

But the point is that, once that "ultimate evil" is identified, nothing can be gained by saying that someone else was more evil, and in fact (as is happening on this thread) such a comparison can be taken to mean that the "ultimate evil" wasn't all that bad. Indeed, when you get into that lowest level of evilness, then such comparisons mean nothing--a point that Checkerboard made in post #26.

I'm not saying that this discussion is therefore pointless or can serve no useful purpose--any discussion of history is almost always educational and well worth the time--I'm just saying that, according to the writer or speaker I was citing, it might be just as well to keep that "ultimate evil" in place so that nobody can be accused of trying to elevate Hitler and (probably unintentionally) diminish the atrocities he and his movement brought about.

If I've missed the mark with this post, I apologize in advance, as this is indeed a complicated thread (to me, anyway).

 

[Tigerace117]

800,000 Russians were fighting on the German side during WW2

Ukrainian Insurgent Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Comrade Stalin’s secret prison

Special Facility No.110 – Stalin’s secret prison – wasn’t in remote Siberia, it was just outside Moscow. на русском языке

www.opendemocracy.net

Read some stuff.

The ROA troops were A) never actually trusted by the Germans; B) only numbered about 50,000 men(unless, of course, you are counting the Hiwis to get that total, many of whom were POWs desperate to avoid starving to death in German camps, and who never actually “fought” anyone) and C) were completely unmotivated in actual “combat” and therefore essentially useless.

The Ukrainian Insurgent Army was dwarfed by the number of Ukrainians in the Red Army, and eventually turned on their German allies regardless.

Not sure why you think posting an article about a run of the mill Stalinist prison camp proves....anything.

Again, learn some actual history.

 

[Tigerace117]

Ukrainians also loyally kept concentration Camps running and did shit where they found No German willing to do

There were plenty of Germans willing to commit mass murder as it turned out. The Ukrainian “auxiliaries” were closely controlled by the SS thugs.

 

[Tigerace117]

It must bother you alot that 70% of German cities saw not a single bomb. My hometown for example.

Nope, cause those towns “just” got the privilege of Allied troops rolling on through, crushing Germany’s fantasies of supremacy forever. Oh, and in the case of the Soviets, dishing out a little payback.