BF2S Forums The Huge WW2 Discussion Thread

Kmar wrote:

A general consensus among those involved. This is exhibited by the very fact that it happened. It is logical to conclude that if Canada was ceding territory to the US then Canada would have been given the authority to do so.

Thats nothing remotely like what happened.
If Canada signed a treaty agreeing not to attack China if they invaded Taiwan would you conclude America had given them the authority to do so? o.O

Says history. Naturally since Britain and France were the only ones capable of real and decisive action against Hitler, they were the only ones with bargaining leverage.

Says nothing, that two military powers signed a treaty doesn't mean the rest of Europe eithe agreed or gave them 'authority' to do so.

What I've challenge is the notion that other European powers bore no responsibility in Hitler's rapid rise. Europe was either giving concessions, cheering annexation, or was attempting to sign alliances. Together this all encouraged Hitler. When the leading powers of Europe failed diplomatically Europe as a whole failed.

No-one was cheering annexation, the Sudetenland wasn't a black and white question for a start.

'Europe as a whole' did not exist, any more than Asia is a unified alliance of any kind.

Varegg wrote:

Aleksandr Shelepin's 3 March 1959 note to Khrushchev, with information about the execution of 21,857 Poles and with the proposal to destroy their personal files.) retrieved on 12 December 2010

yeah, yeah, they destroyed all the files, but kept the note. for lulz i guess.
/facepalm

So has the U.S. ever confirmed or denied it worked with the mafia during WW2 as Lucky Luciano and others claim? And if so what was the extent of the cooperation? Was it worth letting Luciano out of prison?

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-06-28 06:39:19)

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Seems Shahter is just repeating the party line then.

and that should never ever be done, because that party through all its history has done nothing right whatsoever.

Kmar wrote:

That's not the same historical context of post WWI Europe. All of the major players, including parts of Czechoslovakia were in agreement.

Says who, apart from you? Not that the Sudetenland was a simple black/white issue.

They were appeasing and siding with Nazi Germany just like the rest of Europe.

Siding with Nazi Germany? Are these the same countries who went to war over Poland?

The hell there wasn't some cheering. Austria?

Erm, you know that Germany and Austria were sympathetic pretty early on?

EurEurope was either giving concessions, cheering annexation, or was attempting to sign alliances. Together this all encouraged Hitler. When the leading powers of Europe failed diplomatically Europe as a whole failed.
You don't see a single trend there?

There was no 'trend', 'Europe as a whole' has never existed, you know each country speaks its own language for a start? (Apart from Germany and Austria...)

You might as well say Asia as a whole failed' and cite Vietnam as proof.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-28 07:01:16)

Shahter wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Seems Shahter is just repeating the party line then.

and that should never ever be done, because that party through all its history has done nothing right whatsoever.

And how did you come up with that conclusion? ... I can't remember anyone in this thread saying that, but I'm starting to understand where you are coming from ... must be hard for a communist to admit that the ideology he followed all his life didn't really work as intended.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

That's not the same historical context of post WWI Europe. All of the major players, including parts of Czechoslovakia were in agreement.

Says who, apart from you? Not that the Sudetenland was a simple black/white issue.

Says German speaking Czechs.

They were appeasing and siding with Nazi Germany just like the rest of Europe.

Siding with Nazi Germany? Are these the same countries who went to war over Poland?

Yes the very same people who ended up going to war once they finally realized that their failed policy of appeasement wasn't working.

The hell there wasn't some cheering. Austria?

Erm, you know that Germany and Austria were sympathetic pretty early on?

Is Erm your way of admitting you were wrong? You said nobody was cheering annexation. I showed you archival footage of Austrians cheering German troops as they marched through their cities upon annexation. What else do you need?

Kmar wrote:

Tell me why Hitler was talking to Britain about Czechoslovakia.

?

EurEurope was either giving concessions, cheering annexation, or was attempting to sign alliances. Together this all encouraged Hitler. When the leading powers of Europe failed diplomatically Europe as a whole failed.
You don't see a single trend there?

There was no 'trend', 'Europe as a whole' has never existed, you know each country speaks its own language for a start? (Apart from Germany and Austria...)
You might as well say Asia as a whole failed' and cite Vietnam as proof.

Vietnam is a ridiculous comparison. As most people know it was a war of proxy. There absolutely was a trend amongst the major powers of Europe. This is what people generally mean when they talk about the European pre-war talks. The trend, since you apparently aren't getting it, was to avoid war by either siding with or giving in to Hitlers will. The language each country speaks is only relevant in the fact that Hitlers stated goal was to unite all German speaking people.

I really don't understand what you are getting at. It would seem you're squirming over semantics whilst I am discussing the meaningful dialogue between relevant powers. I was hoping this exchange would become something interesting. Instead you keep making silly comparisons of Mexico, Canada, China, and Vietnam.

I don't know. I left halfway

I'm getting tired of this section

Varegg wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Aleksandr Shelepin's 3 March 1959 note to Khrushchev, with information about the execution of 21,857 Poles and with the proposal to destroy their personal files.) retrieved on 12 December 2010

yeah, yeah, they destroyed all the files, but kept the note. for lulz i guess.
/facepalm

So they destroyed the personal files (not unusual trying to cover up genocide)
So they kept the note (not very unusual for someone in Shelepins position to keep a copy of such a note, his only proof that Khrushchev was ever notified)

Care to comment besides the constant face palming?

of course. have you ever seen any confirmation anywhere that khruschev ever received that document? or replied to it? the "official version" used in the "investigation" is that he gave a verbal go ahead. verbal order. in soviet union. where nobody could as much as fart sideways without putting half a litre of ink to paper. don't make me laugh.

You are on very thin ice here Shahter ... you contribute nothing but silly one liners in response, I thought better of you after reading your posts in other threads ...

i am on thin ice? it not me who's talking about documents he can't even read here.

RAIMUS wrote:

Shahter is still basically saying, "You are wrong, but I won't try to prove it because you don't speak Russian" and others are trying to take him to task for such a weak argument.

shahter is basically saying that maybe maybe you should admit that not everything you are told about ww2 is true. that maybe there a trend in current politics with aim at re-wising the outcome of ww2. that maybe there's info out there you cannot hope to get because nobody bothered to translate it for you. why? - because maybe it would make your "objective and respectable" historians look like ass clowns.
but, as i said, if you wish to keep your head in the sand go right ahead. just don't be surprised when something gets in from behind.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

shahter is basically saying that maybe maybe you should admit that not everything you are told about ww2 is true.

maybe you should take your own advice.

maybe. unlike most of you, though, i at least can have a look at what both sides of the argument have to back their position up.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-28 22:47:00)

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

maybe you should take your own advice.

maybe. unlike most of you, though, i at least can have a look at what both sides of the argument have to back their position up.

So basically your entire argument is that no one can be a valid historian or researcher of WW2 unless they speak Russian?

no, my entire argument is that historians and researchers have an unfortunate tendency of doctoring the data and distorting the info, including that about ww2, and you as a reader have no way of spotting that because you don't speak russian.

Shocking wrote:

I don't see the logic in doctoring history about a union that has collapsed. There's no point to it whatsoever, hence I very much doubt it happened.

/sigh
i pointed this several times in this very thread: the results of ww2 and the role different nations played in starting it in the first place - that's the aim. if nothing else, russia inherited lot of stuff, territory included, from soviet union. also, russia's position in modern history and politics is defined to a large extent by its role in ww2. there are those who'd want all that changed.

Shocking wrote:

If it were forged I'm sure the Kremlin would stop acknowledging and commemorating the massacre.

kremlin is not what it used to be was back in soviet times, unfortunately. those clowns are happy to pump the oil and do fuck all about anything else, including soviet heritage. there are many political groups that do not acknowledge that katyn-shit, and not all of those are "evil commies". still, current russian government has the parliament by the balls - they do as they are told, even it means letting them be screwed from behind.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-28 23:46:11)