Shahter wrote:
of course they are. yet they are being constantly compared. not directly of course, that would be nigh impossible,
Okay ... so now you are saying they are not directly compared but rather snuck into the text without the reader noticing it?
Shahter wrote:
but by looking at the events of ww2. nazies attacked ussr - zomg, but ussr was about to attack nazies!
I have yet to read anything that states Soviet was about to attack the Nazis, the Nazis and Hitler in particular was afraid of Soviet and Bolshevism was besides the Jews their number one fear and concern.
Shahter wrote:
nazies killed millions of people - zomg, but soviets killed a lot of people too.
Yes Stalin was in charge and responsible for killing millions, that doesn't take away the fact or diminish that Hitler and the Nazis killed millions, it doesn't exclude the fact that they both killed millions ...
Shahter wrote:
nazies used slave labor - zomg, soviets sent people to gulags!
Yes ... both did that, and no books I've read used the one to excuse the other ...
Shahter wrote:
history is like a septic tank - the biggest turds always raise to the top and that's what all the shifties and war mans get - the "zomg, soviets were like nazies" crap.
You have to make a distinct difference between what some members on this forum spew out and the work of credible authors/historians ...
Shahter wrote:
there is a whole trend aimed, no doubt, at re-wising the outcome of ww2 and shifting the blame for starting it in the first place. it's exceedingly apparent imo, but if people insist on keeping their heads in the sand, who am i to tell them otherwise?
What trend? ... who is revisionist about the outcome of WW2? ... shifting the blame for who started it in the first place, who is doing that? ... is someone trying to pin the start of WW2 on Stalin? ... if that's what you think I hope you have some answers to these pretty straight forward questions?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................