WW2

PalazioVecchio said:
i dunno much about Art. But i guess his landscapes were delightful. But not good enough to get a looney into Art school. Imagine how history would have pivoted upon one decision by a professor of still-life painting.
Without Hitler, the Nazi's would probably have risen anyway ( hyperInflation) and had a competent effective leader. They would have a) destroyed the Brits at Dunkirk and b) taken out Stalin.
Click to expand...
His art was relatively benign and meaningless.
 
Aren't we lucky Hitler lost the war ? otherwise a ton of kids would be baptised 'Adolph' today. Instead its lots of other names. Josef is a popular name in Russia. Francisco in Spain.

WW2. Casts a long shadow. I would trace the lost fertility of Japan & Eastern Germany today to losing the War.
Neutral Poland got utterly destroyed. Neutral Ireland escaped scot free.


www.newstalk.com

Imam 'surprised' Mohammed is Galway's most popular boy name

An imam at the Galway mosque was “pleasantly surprised” to learn Mohammed is now the most popular name for boys born in the city.
www.newstalk.com www.newstalk.com

namerology.com

Most Popular Boys’ Names in Poland

Antoni Jan Jakub Aleksander Szymon Franciszek Filip Mikołaj Wojciech Adam Kacper Stanisław Marcel Leon Michał Nikodem Tymon Ignacy Wiktor Igor Oliwier Piotr Maksymilian Miłosz Tymoteusz Bartosz Oskar Mateusz Julian Dawid Krzysztof Alan Karol Tomasz Dominik Gabriel Hubert Maciej Fabian Paweł...
namerology.com namerology.com
 
Last edited:
silvertop said:
Are you saying that c.13.5 million Soviets would have died anyway had Barbarossa not happened?

I would be interested to see your evidence on that.
Click to expand...
Stalin would have carried on his killing, particularly in the satellite states. The war forced him to keep his own people onside in the end. Although it took him a while to realise that. The Nazis were particularly stupid and ideological. If they had fostered Ukrainians et al, instead of killing them they would have been more than willing allies.
Loads and loads of Russians died in the factories and of starvation. Plus returning prisoners were killed. Evidence enough of the liklehood of Stalin's actions. I believe the post about Stalin killing more of his own people than the Nazis did is correct. But was hidden away with the Uncle Joe attitude for a good while. Time Magazine man of the year - etc.
 
silvertop said:
Are you saying that c.13.5 million Soviets would have died anyway had Barbarossa not happened?

I would be interested to see your evidence on that.
Click to expand...
Before Barbarossa, the Left in the USSR had killed around 5 million Ukrainians in the Holodomor and during the 1930s about a million 'judicial' executions took place - not to mention the numbers killed under torture in custody and death from exhaustion and starvation in the slave labour camps. Never mind though, they did have ballet in the evenings and no wicked capitalists.
 
silvertop said:
There was also the ethnic cleansing and the creation of a racially pure hegemony.
Click to expand...

Ethnic cleansing is effectively what's happening to Europe's native populations, but specifically we are focusing on the UK.
This ethnic cleansing comes as mostly the consequence of Britain's world wars and the subsequent rise of international liberalism in the west (both economic and social). These were choices made by post war leaders (especially the 60s onwards) and they are highly unlikely without the wars.

Some try to say they would have happened anyway, but a good counter-point against that is Japan, which maintained a healthy nationalism despite its far more heavier defeat and didn't use the naturalisation of foreign labour to rebuild its nation....despite, and it's an important point, despite being far more economically and infrastructurally destroyed.....because that's always used as an excuse.

Also I think there's some confusion with this idea that Hitler wanted 'racially pure hegemony' because there was already racial hegemony in Germany and Europe. That wasn't under threat of changing.

No, what he wanted (which would be a given once had he beaten the Soviets) was Germanic supermacy in Europe and he knew that to ensure that he needed to defeat internationalism, first in Europe and especially in the financial sector. His end point was in 'living space' for Germans mainly at the expense of slavs in the east.....Who were to be ethnically cleansed....Horrible.

silvertop said:
Nothing to do with economic political spectrum but certainly thoughts the alt right are echoing today.
Click to expand...

The 'alt right' (a term not really used today in the DR)....like all other political groups isn't one cohesive entity that agrees. This idea that the DR or 'alt right' to use your description are echoing Hitler or these ideas is off by some margin.....this is a common refrain of the left....and common in boomer circles even on the mainstream right.

For example, nothing I believe nor want requires Hitler's ideas. Hitler wasn't concerned about a Germanic majority continuing to exist in Germany.....he would have viewed the very idea of that being under threat as absurd.

I consider myself idealogically in the DR and I've never met or communicated with anyone who ever suggested that Britain should start attacking other nations to advance some cause as Hitler did.

No, that worldview is actually the reserve of neo cons and western liberals who wish to keep the Ukraine war going due to a hatred of Russia (and other reasons)......Not being pro Russia is sensible, but to waste tens of billions on continuing war instead of looking for a negotiated settlement is pretty aggressive.....Yet it's framed as justified, as all war-mongers obviously justify their actions.

None of that comes from the DR....or dissident right.

Also the Nazis wanted to murder the Jewish population in Europe and no one in the DR wants to murder Jews, indeed right wing Jews are part of the DR and it's their safety that is under threat from the liberals and left's (and economic right) idealogy to import non Europeans into Europe.....that's where the main hatred of Jews comes from today. Not the DR.....If there are any Nazi groups operating who call themselves part of the DR movement that can be disowned. I view that as antithetical to anything good.

Enoch Powell fought against the Nazis and was against their ideaogy (and a critic of US policy which he correctly described as wishing to replace the British Empire and thus worked for British decline) yet he also fought against the foreign displacement of Britain's native population. To be against the latter does not mean you support Germany ruling Europe (which happened anyway) and murdering Jews. It's a non sequitur and nothing to do with us.

Even if you look at fascists who ruled Europe's countries at around the same time as Hitler such as Franco or Mussolini (who was a prominent communist before being a fascist) you don't see this hyper hatred of Jews, that was a fixture of National Socialism and a result of who they blamed for losing WW1.

It's a part of National Socialism, not of the modern DR movement across Europe and more importantly here.

But the left don't care because lying about their opponents: as lying is in their DNA.
 
Last edited:
PalazioVecchio said:
Aren't we lucky Hitler lost the war ? otherwise a ton of kids would be baptised 'Adolph' today. Instead its lots of other names. Josef is a popular name in Russia. Francisco in Spain.

WW2. Casts a long shadow. I would trace the lost fertility of Japan & Eastern Germany today to losing the War.
Neutral Poland got utterly destroyed. Neutral Ireland escaped scot free.


www.newstalk.com

Imam 'surprised' Mohammed is Galway's most popular boy name

An imam at the Galway mosque was “pleasantly surprised” to learn Mohammed is now the most popular name for boys born in the city.
www.newstalk.com www.newstalk.com

namerology.com

Most Popular Boys’ Names in Poland

Antoni Jan Jakub Aleksander Szymon Franciszek Filip Mikołaj Wojciech Adam Kacper Stanisław Marcel Leon Michał Nikodem Tymon Ignacy Wiktor Igor Oliwier Piotr Maksymilian Miłosz Tymoteusz Bartosz Oskar Mateusz Julian Dawid Krzysztof Alan Karol Tomasz Dominik Gabriel Hubert Maciej Fabian Paweł...
namerology.com namerology.com
Click to expand...

A Hitler future would have been horrible and a disaster and a wipe out for Jews in Europe.

What replaced that.....has been a disaster specifically for Europeans.....the primary people who defeated Germany (because I view slavs as Europeans)

I'm convinced Churchill did not mean for this to happen....Many in the DR directly blame him.

But, while I disagree with some of the things he did, I fully understand why.

Personally the greater damage has been done by post war leaders.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Ethnic cleansing is effectively what's happening to Europe's native populations, but specifically we are focusing on the UK.
This ethnic cleansing comes as mostly the consequence of Britain's world wars and the subsequent rise of international liberalism in the west (both economic and social). These were choices made by post war leaders (especially the 60s onwards) and they are highly unlikely without the wars.

Some try to say they would have happened anyway, but a good counter-point against that is Japan, which maintained a healthy nationalism despite its far more heavier defeat and didn't use the naturalisation of foreign labour to rebuild its nation....despite, and it's an important point, despite being far more economically and infrastructurally destroyed.....because that's always used as an excuse.

Also I think there's some confusion with this idea that Hitler wanted 'racially pure hegemony' because there was already racial hegemony in Germany and Europe. That wasn't under threat of changing.

No, what he wanted (which would be a given once had he beaten the Soviets) was Germanic supermacy in Europe and he knew that to ensure that he needed to defeat internationalism, first in Europe and especially in the financial sector. His end point was in 'living space' for Germans mainly at the expense of slavs in the east.....Who were to be ethnically cleansed....Horrible.



The 'alt right' (a term not really used today in the DR)....like all other political groups isn't one cohesive entity that agrees. This idea that the DR or 'alt right' to use your description are echoing Hitler or these ideas is off by some margin.....this is a common refrain of the left....and common in boomer circles even on the mainstream right.

For example, nothing I believe nor want requires Hitler's ideas. Hitler wasn't concerned about a Germanic majority continuing to exist in Germany.....he would have viewed the very idea of that being under threat as absurd.

I consider myself idealogically in the DR and I've never met or communicated with anyone who ever suggested that Britain should start attacking other nations to advance some cause as Hitler did.

No, that worldview is actually the reserve of neo cons and western liberals who wish to keep the Ukraine war going due to a hatred of Russia (and other reasons)......Not being pro Russia is sensible, but to waste tens of billions on continuing war instead of looking for a negotiated settlement is pretty aggressive.....Yet it's framed as justified, as all war-mongers obviously justify their actions.

None of that comes from the DR....or dissident right.

Also the Nazis wanted to murder the Jewish population in Europe and no one in the DR wants to murder Jews, indeed right wing Jews are part of the DR and it's their safety that is under threat from the liberals and left's (and economic right) idealogy to import non Europeans into Europe.....that's where the main hatred of Jews comes from today. Not the DR.....If there are any Nazi groups operating who call themselves part of the DR movement that can be disowned. I view that as antithetical to anything good.

Enoch Powell fought against the Nazis and was against their ideaogy (and a critic of US policy which he correctly described as wishing to replace the British Empire and thus worked for British decline) yet he also fought against the foreign displacement of Britain's native population. To be against the latter does not mean you support Germany ruling Europe (which happened anyway) and murdering Jews. It's a non sequitur and nothing to do with us.

Even if you look at fascists who ruled Europe's countries at around the same time as Hitler such as Franco or Mussolini (who was a prominent communist before being a fascist) you don't see this hyper hatred of Jews, that was a fixture of National Socialism and a result of who they blamed for losing WW1.

It's a part of National Socialism, not of the modern DR movement across Europe and more importantly here.

But the left don't care because lying about their opponents as lying is in their DNA.
Click to expand...
Not Jews, Muslims.

The "common enemy".

By way of example, today I saw a post which discussed the Islamic Republic of England with the other UK nations breaking free to escape their control. A ludicrous comment, but one that chimes with many comments I see on this site.
 
Stirlingsays said:
A Hitler future would have been horrible and a disaster and a wipe out for Jews in Europe.

What replaced that.....has been a disaster specifically for Europeans.....the primary people who defeated Germany (because I view slavs as Europeans)

I'm convinced Churchill did not mean for this to happen....Many in the DR directly blame him.

But, while I disagree with some of the things he did, I fully understand why.

Personally the greater damage has been done by post war leaders.
Click to expand...
Greater than Hitler?
 
silvertop said:
Greater than Hitler?
Click to expand...

Was Hitler going to replace the demographics of western Europe as the post war leaders are doing?

As I stress, this is not an endorsement of the murderous disaster that was Hitler.

I have made that clear.

Not having Hitler turn up at all would be what I'd want
(which doesn't happen without WW1).....Hitler and Stalin ended the lines of countless.
 
Last edited:
silvertop said:
Not Jews, Muslims.

The "common enemy".

By way of example, today I saw a post which discussed the Islamic Republic of England with the other UK nations breaking free to escape their control. A ludicrous comment, but one that chimes with many comments I see on this site.
Click to expand...

You could replace the word ‘Jew’ with ‘Muslim’ in a lot of early Nazi literature and propaganda and it wouldn’t be a million miles away from what you frequently online.

Quite eye opening to see what the ‘DR’ believe and their distorted view of history. Genuinely quite scary.
 
silvertop said:
Not Jews, Muslims.

The "common enemy".

By way of example, today I saw a post which discussed the Islamic Republic of England with the other UK nations breaking free to escape their control. A ludicrous comment, but one that chimes with many comments I see on this site.
Click to expand...

Hyperbolic commentary is everywhere and within every group, left/right/centre.

Outside of projecting forward trends (which is done by sensible people in every field) the future is hard to predict other that unless serious change happens, that future won't be controlled by Europeans native to their countries.....Unless there is directional change the only question is when, not if.

If someone 40 years ago suggested that London would have an Islamic major and that Trafalgar Square would be the occasional meeting point for large crowds of Muslims praying.....No one would have believed it....apart from someone like Powell.
 
ASCPFC said:
Stalin would have carried on his killing, particularly in the satellite states. The war forced him to keep his own people onside in the end. Although it took him a while to realise that. The Nazis were particularly stupid and ideological. If they had fostered Ukrainians et al, instead of killing them they would have been more than willing allies.
Loads and loads of Russians died in the factories and of starvation. Plus returning prisoners were killed. Evidence enough of the liklehood of Stalin's actions. I believe the post about Stalin killing more of his own people than the Nazis did is correct. But was hidden away with the Uncle Joe attitude for a good while. Time Magazine man of the year - etc.
Click to expand...
Millions died during Stalin's long and brutal rule.

However, it is controversial to blame the second largest cause on him - famine. Perhaps agriculture would have been more robust without forced collectivisation? Perhaps not.

And undoubtedly he is to blame for many of the deaths suffered during the War. But half? Really? And as far as I am aware, it was definitely German panzers charging into the Soviet Union that started that campaign and not T34s charging the other way. Would most of those deaths during that period have happened without Barbarossa? I doubt it.

There would still have been deaths from gulags, forced resettlement, the post-war famine etc., but not even close to the scale of the tens of millions who died directly because of the Great Patriotic War.
 
silvertop said:
Millions died during Stalin's long and brutal rule.

However, it is controversial to blame the second largest cause on him - famine. Perhaps agriculture would have been more robust without forced collectivisation? Perhaps not.

And undoubtedly he is to blame for many of the deaths suffered during the War. But half? Really? And as far as I am aware, it was definitely German panzers charging into the Soviet Union that started that campaign and not T34s charging the other way. Would most of those deaths during that period have happened without Barbarossa? I doubt it.

There would still have been deaths from gulags, forced resettlement, the post-war famine etc., but not even close to the scale of the tens of millions who died directly because of the Great Patriotic War.
Click to expand...
Stalin is as much to blame for starting the war as Hitler. The Molotov-Ribbentropf Pact. Starvation was often completely on purpose. Of ethnicities/nationalities he disliked. Which was most.
It is clear his killings would continue and did continue. A lot of the deaths from the propaganda named Great Patriotic War were simply attributed to it to avoid blame - and a stain on all the allies.
Lenin had recognised a certain market element was needed for collectivisation - and Lenin wasn't exactly nice. He just didn't want millions dying - more like a million. Stalin actively wanted and hastened deaths. He personally perused death lists all night. You can't get more psycho than Stalin. Hitler was far lesser in psychotic but still a monster. Stalin the bigger monster.
Look at the sheer brazenness of the USSR letting the Poles die for example in Warsaw. General staff used to laugh and boast about how many soldiers would die. Literally wasting men and laughing about it due to s*** tactics and pointless offensives. All for the party - which was only Stalin. He controlled everything and killed anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top