The work of historians? Which historians? The ones that say A or the ones that say B? Or perhaps that say C?
There is no official narrative?
If you tell me that you've never seen someone that said a variation of "Hitler wanted to conquer the world!" I'm going to call bullshit.
Who is 'someone'? I've seen people say that Hitler is a great guy. You can find people saying anything.
Yes. But the official WW2 narrative is a fairy tale and that's precisely what I'm attacking.
Is "the official narrative" not the work of historians? I have yet to see even one who claims that it was anything but Realpolitik.
And they probably didn't want to have to deal with the Soviet Union. In any case they were unbelievable retarded and that's pretty much the only reason why Germany was as successful as it was.
They certainly were negligent in that regard, probably because they thought the Soviet Union could never reach an accord with Germany. But a main stumbling block was the fact that Poland would not allow Soviet troops to pass through its territory to fight Germany - for very good reason, because they might never leave. Of course, if there had been an accord, then Germany would never have invaded.
It's a serious question. Can you not answer it?
And the decision to supply the Soviet Union. They never intended to save Poland.
Duh. Both are just Realpolitik. You think they're supplying Ukraine out of the goodness of their hearts? Or for that matter, that they supplied anti-Soviet Nazis and mass murderers in the aftermath of WW2 because they had sympathy for Nazis?
They could've easily done so by actually making good on their promise when the war began, which is the reason why Poland steadfastly refused any and all peaceful resolutions with Germany but they decided to do nothing and watch.
Now you have arrived at a valid criticism. Their 'strategy', such as it was, was appallingly bad. Actually, the French had promised Poland an offensive into Germany. So they stepped in, took 200 meters of land (or something, it was notional), then withdrew. This even though Germany's western border was close to being undefended.
They thought they could strangle Germany with a blockade like they did in WW1.
say I've been complaining about Germany being blamed for things they haven't done.
The things that have been known for decades? Alright.
And that Poland was used as a sacrificial pawn to start a war.
So Poland was a poor, innocent victim?
But it calls the official WW2 narrative into question.
What is the 'official narrative' and which part do you call into question? Is there a Department of Official Narratives somewhere? I guess the USSR had an official narrative, though you probably wouldn't be happy to know what it is.
The problem was never that they endorse politicians. It is that their 'reporting' was always been biased as hell. They are doubling down on stupid.
I assume you meant to say 'was not'.
I also assume that everyone knows that there are no good guys in politics. Also, you've been complaining about what was done to Poland by the Soviets. I assume it's also 'not some poor innocent victim' when discussing the Katyn massacre or communist terror? The fact that Poland was not 'some poor innocent victim' (like no country is), doesn't justify anyone else's depredations.
Which specific decision are you referring to?
Poland didn't treat its minorities right? Wait till you hear about how the Germans treated minorities... and majorities in the lands they conquered.
This is the WW2-era equivalent of pro-Confederate people saying they dislike Lincoln because he was allegedly a racist.
I didn't know about that, but it's interesting that it turned out that they did it when the Cold War started. Of course, you don't exactly have to be a genius to figure that out.
But Britain totally entered the war to save Poland
Britain and France entered the war to maintain the balance of power. Poland was a pretext. Everybody knows that.
That's why they didn't lift a finger when Germany invaded, made sure that they didn't have to declare war on the Soviet Union when they did
When you can't handle one foe, it is not wise to add another one to the list. That is also why they decided against attacking Baku in order to sabotage the USSR's attack on Finland,
and immediately sold out half of Europe to Communist terror rule.
You mean after the war?
Actually, they'd have kept that lie going until they suddenly 'discovered' that it was the Soviets all along when the Cold War started. In 1948 or something.
Like they suddenly discovered that Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons was Very Bad when they wanted to justify a war against him... when at the time he was using them, they were supporting him with arms and satellite data, and even covering for his use of those very same chemical weapons.
SupremeReader, one of our best contributors who unfortunately went mad as a Pole due to the Ukraine war that the West provoked, used to get very angry when I pointed out to him that the British and the Americans covered up the Katyn massacre - and even threatened the Polish government in exile to stop complaining about it.
There are no good guys in politics. None.
People who share a skin color with me, who came before me, fought and died against the Nazis, but because the Nazis also shared a skin color with me, I share the blame for that as well.
White people are to blame for anything bad any white person ever did, but they don't deserve any credit for anything good any white person ever did.
People of privileged colors are not to blame for anything people of their color did, and they do deserve credit for the good things that their color did.
"Have you heard Mansa Musa was rich? SHUT UP, I don't care that he owned slaves, I just want to take credit for the fact that he was rich."
For the record, I think it's good to criticize the bad things that your country did. Unfortunately, it does seem to be almost necessarily the case that you 'cuck' as you put it. Both of these are products of pathological nationalism, where the state is identified with the people - either you cannot criticize the state's actions, even in the past, because that supposedly reflects negatively on your people, OR you have to 'cuck' for the same reason. Actually, I think rightist Americans get it exactly right - they criticize the state's actions while being intensely patriotic and nationalistic, which is how I think everyone should be. On the other hand, Europeans get it exactly wrong, they have no nationalism or patriotism as a general rule, but they do have the pathological form in spades.
So what if the Japanese state committed war crimes between 1931 and 1945? How many people who are responsible for that are even alive? The people who say that generally live in countries that are committing the greatest number of war crimes at the very moment.
You think what matters is what you intend, rather than what you are saying?
Not sure of the beauty of it, the heavy AI use does make everything look a bit like fever dream.
Oh I don't mean the images, but the idea behind it. I like the story.
they give some ground to then state that you are retarded since Trump want to use the army against dissidents
I love how you can date any anti-Trump anything because they will make the anti-Trump claim that they made up last week.
Yeah, I'm not saying these are great people, but they seem smarter than the average anti-Trump nutjob, who claim people dislike Democrats because they're not building concentration camps or something. If it wasn't so crazy and over-the-top, it might actually persuade some people who are anti-Democrat but also dubious about Trump.
I'm interested to hear, are we going to stop Africans coming uh to Europe uh and for that matter to North America? We just going to build some enormous wall and keep them in sub-Saharan Africa? Is that the plan?
For a historian, his knowledge of geography is quite deficient. You don't need a 'giant wall' if you want to keep sub-Saharans out of America.
Uhm. While the meme answer is "Good idea," the more serious answer is that he's got this badly, badly reversed. It's not about keeping Africans in Africa, it's about enforcing our own countries' borders, in this case the UK. Africans can leave Africa. No one else is forced to let them in. Not accepting Africans to the UK would not be the same as imprisoning Africans in Africa.
You are free to leave your home, but you're not free to come into mine, let alone despoil and plunder it.
if you want to just keep the societies uh of what you could call the North as they are, stop any further shift from white to brown in the average complexion the average pigmentation, you have got to explain to me how that's going to work economically.
The arrogance. Just straight out admitting that they have been 'shifting the average complexion from white to brown', which no one asked for (not even tanning bed enthusiasts), and now they cry bloody murder over people wanting to stop further encroachments.
there will be more brown people
As a brown person, I think there's enough brown people as it is. Diversity in the world is actually nice. Do you really want a world without beautiful blonde women?
His history books are actually not that bad, at least The Pity of War.
(ducks)
This is a piece of beauty. You know how some of the best artists are borderline crazy people?
God damnit, did they make Vance sound awesome. Just like that, he made himself Caesar. And touching that they were longing for Trump. All the 'bad stuff' they complain about happened after Orange Hitler got sick and died. Apparently, they don't know he has nine lives, and that he has only surrendered one of them.
One thing I will unironically give them credit for is that it doesn't strawman the reasons why people don't like Democrats... vaccine mandates and the censorship of websites. Even so, it's ironic to then hear that the God-Emperor (fils adoptive) is the one who then used AI to censor social media. You know... that's what they're doing, right?
I mean, black women date deadbeat drug-dealing black men with a pulse, there's so few of them out there who are not in prison and willing to date black women.
None of these women would be rejecting that guy. In fact, they'd vote for Trump to get into his good graces.
Good to see, but they are worse here: https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-the-2024-US-presidential-election
And there was also another site where they tanked even worse than here.
Betting markets did better last times around. While pundits were saying that Trump had no chance, they gave him a better chance - though obviously, they were very wrong in 2016 all the same.
You are correct. Some allege that Jesus was an Essene, but he was meaningfully different from them as well.
Fortunately for him, the Poles - and French - were even less ready for war than the Wehrmacht. But this narrative isn't that far off. At the very least, he wanted to expand into eastern Europe and the USSR, cleanse the population there by starvation or massacres, and settle Germans there.
He may not have the intention of going West, but Realpolitk takes balance of power into account for a reason: a Germany that has gobbled up even the western parts of the USSR would be unstoppable. Even the USSR itself, with basically the territory that Germany was aiming at, would have been unstoppable, despite a counterproductive economic system.
Putin isn't Hitler though. And he's aiming only at historic Russian lands.