No, I just asked you for a brief summary in your own words. This is standard practice in conversation. You’re the one pretending like that’s too hard. This is just pretending, though, and much like your constant attempts to do personal attacks, it betrays your weakness.
Western countries are fully aware that we did not eradicate fascism, that’s covered in our schools. Like I said, libs are not big on extermination, even of fascist people. Or communist people for that matter, though I do worry for our future under the Christian Nationalists. They are not libs. I do wonder, though, how you feel about the AfD being so much stronger in former East Germany than West Germany. Why is modern fascism stronger in the former Soviet Bloc region of that single country?
There’s nothing for me to judge. Copy/pasting a couple book titles without giving an actual argument is a meaningless appeal to authority. Your opinion of me personally is ultimately irrelevant. It’s the position that matters.
Your “basic historical facts” are very conveniently dodging the USSR militarily seizing the land of Eastern Poland, killing many and not granting them any autonomy, as some strange way to “protect” Poles.
The USSR was marginally cleaner than the Reich. Pointing out that the West weren’t good either does not mean the USSR wasn’t heavy on conquest and war crimes.
If I’m wasting so much of your time, you are again, fully free to leave or block me or whatever makes you feel better.
Because we are not arguing about the article. This thread is about the Katyn Massacre, not British funding for Mussolini, which was what your first article was about. I am not the one that needs to reread anything here, I can apparently remember this much better than you.
Probably because I’m not nearly as involved in numerous different attempts to spread my country’s propaganda like you are your country’s, I only have to worry about this one conversation, instead of many.
Just pointing out one of your lies, that’s all. That specific year was mentioned in your article. Since I commented with it, I clearly read your first article. You saying you have no reason to believe I read your article is a blatant lie from you.
I think this is just an excuse for why you don’t want to defend your position with anything except book titles. Which is very convenient, by the way, but you’re not fooling anyone.
Really? Because my initial, unedited comment includes a year (1922 if I recall) that I could have only gotten from reading the first article you gave me. So, this:
there is no reason for me to believe you read the first article I posted
is just blatantly, provably, false. That said, this specific conversation is actually not about that, it’s about something else. Not that I expect you to care, unless it’s convenient for you.
Lastly, asking you to address one single point in your own words does not, and should not, require a book. That’s very disingenuous.
edit for grammar
Funny that you accuse me of tirades when I’ve been nothing but measured and polite, while you spout stuff like:
The evil Russians are corrupting the website! Oh no. Can you stop any time you want? Because it seems possible to juggle you without a fight. I think I can stunlock you for the rest of your life. This is history, you can’t opt out of it any time you like. What you fail to understand about historical discussions is there is no last word, people die.
I gave you your chance to explain yourself, in your own words. I know that takes some effort, no question, but if you really had confidence in your position, you’d be more than happy to at least briefly summarize. Instead you punted. It’s a common tactic, don’t think people haven’t noticed. Science communities deal with tough questions all the time, you see people try to explain, because they care and love their topic. They don’t just go “read two books, now shut up”.
No, I think it’s the whiney one making personal attacks and posting their own favorite propaganda links instead of actually engaging in conversation.
You can stop replying any time you know, if you’re oh so upset.
That’s cute, but I think we both know who is acting more like a teenager here.
No, not a handful, the Nazi Party was very large after all. Only a small percentage of them were hung. Libs generally aren’t favorable towards extermination.
I don’t think there are many people that believe that, actually. I did not act that way at all, you just want to paint me that way, the reason for which should be fairly obvious.
edit for wording
If you’re refuting my evidence, you should be able to type out a brief summary of your argument for why that massacre shouldn’t matter or whatever. A brief paragraph summarizing the most important point would be fine. That’s fairly traditional instead of just “go read this stuff”, which may or may not even fully pertain, knowing passionate ideologues on the internet.
I wasn’t asking you for a source. I was challenging your assertion with a piece of evidence. Those are two distinct activities. That should be fairly common sense.
Frankly, if you don’t want to be bothered, you should probably stay off the internet. It’s a rough world out there.
edit: Oh, and btw, the AfD is most successful in former East Germany, not West Germany. So who didn’t destroy it?
Meaning was pretty simple, you said something misleading, so I gave a piece of evidence to counter it. Pretty big massacre of Poles.
You are correct, I will probably not read those, I was being sarcastic. You’re pretty clearly severely biased, as well as just trying to be combative for combativeness’ sake, so I’m not particularly interested. Regarding me feeling entitled, you are here posting in a community that I subscribe to, so I do feel fully entitled to engage with you as a fellow user . Particularly when someone makes a claim, it is pretty common practice on the internet to challenge it, ask for a source, etc.
I wasn’t saying I was unfamiliar with all the people, you may recall from just a couple comments ago that I agreed there was collaboration with some people that were not hung.
You asked if I’d seen the meme. I answered truthfully, no, and I told you why. I think you’re more interested in trolling than giving any fucks though, judging from your tone.
Sorry for disturbing you, you must be quite sensitive. I’m sure I’ll get around to those.
Blowhard or not, it’s completely true.
No, I don’t find memes on social media to be healthy sources of information. Fine for light-hearted entertainment, but usually more propagandistic than educational when they try to be serious. Real history is entirely too complex for anything worthwhile to be conveyed with simple factoids.
The Katyn Massacre begs to differ with your overall thesis on Poland. Had protecting the Polish really been the desired outcome, they could have been granted autonomy of their own domestic affairs rather than annexation into the Soviet Union, in what was clearly an imperialist landgrab.
Of course they did. They also speculated about the utility of using Stalin against the Axis. These things are common in global politics.
Ah, in 1922. That makes more sense. Cozied up to a few of them post-war I suppose, the ones that didn’t hang anyway.
Okay, that’s one of the silliest ideas I’ve ever heard. We’re supposed to internalize and integrate information, not just parrot whatever our authorities feed us. This is why I ask for your words, not the words of your teachers.
That is a horrible idea that will dull your independent thinking in the long run. Perhaps this has happened to you already. We are supposed to always consider thoughts separately from our elders, our countries and our teachers. This is very important. Without this we cannot be independent from our own traditions, our own narratives, our habits, etc. It’s not without dangers, but it’s a very important skill. We usually press it very heavily once you reach the university level. It’s not for the young, obviously, but very important for adults. It’s key to being able to be flexible, innovate and solve new problems.
It’s like you don’t believe in personally discussing information, which I still think is a flimsy excuse to cover for your weakness. You’re not willing to simply discuss because you simply can’t. You haven’t internalized the information.