God of Nothing
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2016
That conflicts are morally justified or morally reprehensible rather than the result of clashing desires/interests between human beings.
Worst Case of Historical Revisionism?
- Thread starter SpergPatrol
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
They also burned works by Kästner, Kafka, Lessing, Freud, Einstein, Tucholsky, Brecht, Mann, Hemingway, London, ...
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
They put out propaganda encouraging jihad against Christians and sure enough a bunch of Armenians died and they put some others in refugee camps in the Syrian desert where they all starved.
What people never mention is that a bunch of the massacres were done by the Kurds but the Kurds have been made into dindu nuffins because the US/Israel designated them as allies because of Saddam and the Assads.
Here's an easy counterexample. Keffals, a self-professed communist groomer, wants to use illegal methods (DDoS, libel, tortious interference) to take down Kiwifarms, a self-professed free speech site which lacks illegal content because users are allowed to freely express themselves.
God of Nothing
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2016
Keffals is the result of extreme libertarian and post-modern ideology. He desires to fuck children. It astonishes me and countless other users of this site that people support him. We cannot change that reality though. Even though we do view him as immoral, he and his supporters view us as immoral. The act of sexually abusing a child disgusts us for a variety of reasons, morally and otherwise. In traditional and conservative ideology, engaging a minor sexually is wrong because they are physically and mentally incapable of processing sexual stimuli. We have statistics and common knowledge that child abusers have a variety of issues and behaviors that disturb societal cohesion and stability. Their victims are the same.
We want a stable society and they want a society where they can do whatever they want. Each thinks they're right. What matters is who's left standing. There will still be people who think we're evil for daring to disrupt that degenerate's grooming operation. Long after we're dead and buried, there'll be some fucking pederass looking back on history and saying that prick was right. And there's going to be someone there rightfully calling him a faggot.
If your morals are based in what's considered legal, you might have a different problem entirely.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2018
Don't forget that the Brits beat the Germans in regards to the turbojet.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2019
The truth lies somewhere in between. Hitler early on had great instincts and went against his generals when they recommended caution, but victory over France blinded him, because he viewed France as the largest obstacle to his plans. It was after all the enemy he fought so hard against in WW1, if they fall this easily surely everything else will follow.
Everything Ive read indicates Sherman's very real regret for doing it. It's telling that longstreet practically died at his funeral because he wouldn't wear a hat in the rain. (He got Pneumonia)
Man Yugoslavia had some insane stuff going on at the time. We are talking about an area that was so much of an ethnic and religious clusterfuck that the local communists were practically the cleanest ones in the room and the nazis did not have the dirtiest hands.
Tito is a guy that deserves more character examination for his incredible tactics and actions. Im not gonna say he was perfect but he is probably the closest thing you can actually compare to a benevolent dictator. At the very least he was the only other communist leader with the balls to stand against Stalin in Europe. Of course as soon as he died everything went to hell because there was no clear line of succession.
They were overrated in what they could and could not do, but id say they had better track records of gaining and acting upon information then most.
The Russians literally had the best possible intelligence in the world, but it was completely useless most of the time because Stalin barely trusted them. For example, It's a common romantic misconception that the soviet spy in japan Richard Sorge, sacrificed his life to give info that enabled the Russians to back away from Serbia, but Stalin was already moving his troops before he sent the info. He died for nothing. Stalin only started trusted his intel late in the war around 1943 or so, and it wasn't as effective as it could have been because the earlier purges had severed most lines of communication between their agents in Germany. (It's worth noting that america and Britain routinely shared intelligence with Russia, but Russia NEVER exchanged the same courtesy.)
America was pretty good, but their specialty was in invention, intel gathering and estimating information. (how much explosives do you need to blow up a bunker, what is the range of a machine gun nest etc) Really it was the combo of america and Britain that made for the perfect intel force in the war.
Germany had the WORST intel guys. They would routinely fuck up ops and get themselves captured and or subverted as double agents. Most the time they got the best intelligence they could from sending somebody to go down and buy the local newspapers and travel bouchures. Some have attributed this to the leader the Abwehr being a sympathizer of the allies, but no, he really was just that incompetent and self serving.
France had all of their intel guys in germany captured before the war started because the Janitor of the french consolidate was a German spy who broke into the safe and acquired the info.
My personal contribution is the common misconception that Russia was able to win the war against Germany on its own. Complete horseshit, they BADLY needed land lease resources from the Americans and brits early on. It's even admitted by the soviet foreign minister Molotov in his diary, that without those weapons, food, oil, vehicles and equipment there was a real chance they could have lost the war. This was delivered at a not inconsiderable cost to the convoys that made the trek over to Russia either, as germany threw a lot of planes and U-boats at the problem. If Germany had put more pressure and was able to capture the ports history might have been changed.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
@Michael Wade
I literally opened this thread to post this. Something like 95% of Soviet railway infrastructure developed during the war came from the US. Stalin himself is on the record as saying the USSR would have crumbled without lend-lease.
That said, I have about as the same amount of patience for people who think the US won the war by itself. The advantage of having a vast manufacturing base that was essentially immune to disruption can’t be overstated, but liberating Western Europe without literally millions of Wehrmacht soldiers being tied up in the east would have been a very different proposition.
The truth is in the Goldilocks zone between the idea that the Soviets won the war single-handedly and the idea that the US and UK did all the heavy lifting,
Except in the pacific that is. China fucking owes us, and it bothers me how much this is lost in current discourse.
The IJN didn’t sink itself.
The Royal Navy did not have a carrier arm large enough to do more than protect Australia after losing most of the UK’s mainland interests. There’s a popular misconception that Russian generals solved all their problems by throwing men into the grinder, but it’s hard to view US Admirals in the Pacific was as doing anything other than the same thing but with money.
There were talented leaders, sure, but almost as many fleet carriers rolled off US slipways in 1944-1945 as existed in the entire world in 1941.
I literally opened this thread to post this. Something like 95% of Soviet railway infrastructure developed during the war came from the US. Stalin himself is on the record as saying the USSR would have crumbled without lend-lease.
That said, I have about as the same amount of patience for people who think the US won the war by itself. The advantage of having a vast manufacturing base that was essentially immune to disruption can’t be overstated, but liberating Western Europe without literally millions of Wehrmacht soldiers being tied up in the east would have been a very different proposition.
The truth is in the Goldilocks zone between the idea that the Soviets won the war single-handedly and the idea that the US and UK did all the heavy lifting,
Except in the pacific that is. China fucking owes us, and it bothers me how much this is lost in current discourse.
The IJN didn’t sink itself.
The Royal Navy did not have a carrier arm large enough to do more than protect Australia after losing most of the UK’s mainland interests. There’s a popular misconception that Russian generals solved all their problems by throwing men into the grinder, but it’s hard to view US Admirals in the Pacific was as doing anything other than the same thing but with money.
There were talented leaders, sure, but almost as many fleet carriers rolled off US slipways in 1944-1945 as existed in the entire world in 1941.
Last edited: