Can it get any Worse for Bush?


  • Moderator

    I am not saying the constitution says anything
    (not saying it is void of words just nothing relevant to direct argument here… I used it to make a point)
    I am only saying any opinions expressed here are exempted from laws and penalties imposed by nations and there appropriate legal systems… AaA doesn’t match up to a political forum… it is a game with a set of rules to make sure everyone understands their boundaries within the game system… here there is no game system, no win, no lose, no life to be lost or gained, just words, just opinions… the only rules here are those allowing everyone to participate, without getting verbally barraged because someone does not agree… Those rules like any open democratic forum are essential to keep it alive, and, in our case, interested, especially in the carrying out of debates… I say lets keep it that way…

    GG



  • Let’s keep it civil here guys, or else I will have to lock this thread.

    But how can a historain today accurately portray the battle of Marathon? Was he there? Did he witness the battle? Does he even understand the weapons of the time?

    This is why it’s better to have a historian, preferably one from a 3rd party neutral nation, record the events in a non-partisan matter.

    A historian will use his primary sources. Let’s take the book 1776 by David McCullough for example. His account of the battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston uses a host of sources, including letters written by George Washington, John Singleton Copley, addresses on the floor of the House of Commons, decrees from King George III, newspaper records, diary entries of American and British Soldiers, etc. Good historians are able to properly record history even if they personally have not experienced that specific event, and in fact are able to do so in a more accurate manner.

    Another issue is revisionist history. This is where historians rewrite history to make it more politically correct for the day. We see this often today specifically around events that surround wars. These historians try to justify it as making the accounting more correct, but in actuallity, they are just changing history to be more pallatable to the people of the time and screwing up future historians that may only want to find the truth.

    You would love one of my favorite books called Lies My Teacher Told Me. He talks about how American History textbooks cookie-cut history, creating heroes and downplaying not-so-pretty events.

    For example, let’s take Christopher Columbus. Christopher Columbus committed significant amounts of genocide (upwards of one million deaths). We don’t learn that in school, do we? Our history textbooks borderline make up stories about Columbus. For example, one textbook describes Columbus’s landing in the Americans something along the lines of (I don’t have the book at college with me) “For two months, the storm-battered ships had traveled through the Atlantic Ocean, when one morning they finally caught a glimpse of land”. When in reality, Columbus’s ships did not hit any inclimate weather until after they had alright sighted Haiti, and had only been at sea for a little over a mont. (they stopped at the Azores for an extended period of time. It had been 2 months since the sailors had left Spain, but not 2 months at sea.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @F_alk:

    @stuka:

    …Let her stay and blow out her hot air rhetoric. It’s not like it is going to change my way of life. 😉

    Not yours, but maybe the life of someone weaker-willed.
    There are enough examples in the world’s history that show how dangerous her like is…. and for the moment i am tired of her (and the way her arguing style is just a bad copy of her opponents’ style).

    I mean … she now complains for the first time that i disagreed with her family members experience … now, that noone can check it. And she still sticks to her point that she knows better than someone who was there… although in her reply to Yanny that does seem to matter somehow.

    So, i still want her to leave.

    You did, you said my family lied when you claimed that I said your grandpa lied.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @F_alk:

    @Guerrilla:

    @F_alk:

    …I am tired of her. I want her to leave. …

    But F_alk regardless of how stupid people talk (in your mind’s eye) they still have a free will to express there views… To just Ban someone because you think they post stupid is like executing someone because they don’t agree with your political party’s platform…
    GG

    sigh
    do i say i want her banned, or do i say i want her to leave ?

    I want her to leave … on her own free will. I thought that was obvious.
    Please, don’t start to put words in my mouth like her.

    PS: she is violating my nation’s constitution by saying part of the genocide did not happen. That is more than a mere “party platform” and an exception to the right of “free speech” over here.

    A) He never, to my knowledge, called for me to be banned. That’s been left to the illustrious Mary.

    B) I didn’t say the genocide didn’t happen. I said it focused on the Jews and Gypsies.

    This is how it started. I made the comment that Americans derive themselves from oppressed people and that’s why many Americans inherently distrust the government and wish to see it shrunk.

    F_alk claimed that Germans were way more oppressed under Hitler then Americans ever were.

    I said that’s not entirely true, that was the Jews and Gypsies primarily.

    He said that I didn’t know what I was talking about and it was all Germans, because his grandfather said so.

    I said that the German people, other then Jews and Gypsies who were stripped of their citizenship and thus, technically, not Germans anymore, were hardly more oppressed then black slaves, Japanese in American concentration camps, Jews and Gypsies in the Nazi death camps, etc.

    He started claiming I called his grandfather a liar.

    later, in a different arguement, I said that there was German resistance to the occupation after WWII. He said there was absolutely none, zero, no resistance what-so-ever to the occupation.

    I pointed out that my family was there and they were under orders to capture nazis. These nazis in return fired upon them, stole, set timed charges in “secure” areas and generally conducted themselves as local terrorists much in the same manner as the French Resistance Cells did in WWII France and a few terrorists do in Iraq.

    He again called my family liars.

    However, I happen to have an actual bullet pulled from a soldier who died capturing a suspected Nazi as he was shot at and killed in 1947. I have other stories written down in journals and told by word of mouth showing that the German resistance in the late 40’s early 50’s was quite a nuissance, but yet he still claims that I lied and he is nothing but a pure and innocent boy who speaks nothing but the truth.

    This is utter, and total, bullsh*t and we all know it, F_alk. Many might not admit it, but you’re so full of it, it’s hard to see out the window anymore it’s so deep.

    Perhaps your sources are bad? I know the German’s have rewritten their history quite a bit and have attempted to crush any sense of German spirit so as to avoid another Hitler comming to power, but that doesn’t mean you can’t go get the facts somewhere else. Read up on it.

    I can help you, if you want. There’s plenty of books at the Russian Library of St. Petersburg (formerly Lenningrad where Stalin placed many old WWII journals from his soldiers on display) where you can read all about the German terrorists in World War II and how the Germans raped and murdered civilians in Russia on purpose and with malice aforethought. How the Germans employed actual torture tactics against young children in front of their fathers, dismembering, raping and sometimes killing them to extract information.

    Maybe, just maybe, then you’ll understand what real persecution by the state is and what really happened in your country after the war. Do you think it was an accident that Russians hated you so much that they’d rather machine gun your citizens in the streets then capture them? Do you, maybe, understand why they had to be stopped by the British and Americans (and Canadians, Australians, etc, etc, etc) from doing just that?

    There are some who say we should have let them. If they were all like you, maybe that’s true. But I have reason to believe you arn’t the majority there, just the loudest, so it’s probably a good thing we didn’t. After all, if they had obliterated the Germans we might not have Volkswagons, BMWs or really good chocolate!


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Yanny:

    But how can a historain today accurately portray the battle of Marathon? Was he there? Did he witness the battle? Does he even understand the weapons of the time?

    This is why it’s better to have a historian, preferably one from a 3rd party neutral nation, record the events in a non-partisan matter.

    A historian will use his primary sources. Let’s take the book 1776 by David McCullough for example. His account of the battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston uses a host of sources, including letters written by George Washington, John Singleton Copley, addresses on the floor of the House of Commons, decrees from King George III, newspaper records, diary entries of American and British Soldiers, etc. Good historians are able to properly record history even if they personally have not experienced that specific event, and in fact are able to do so in a more accurate manner.

    In this case the historian in question is just applying critical thinking to evidence laid out by actual participants and witnesses. This is not what I complain about. (See below for more.)

    @Yanny:

    Another issue is revisionist history. This is where historians rewrite history to make it more politically correct for the day. We see this often today specifically around events that surround wars. These historians try to justify it as making the accounting more correct, but in actuallity, they are just changing history to be more pallatable to the people of the time and screwing up future historians that may only want to find the truth.

    You would love one of my favorite books called Lies My Teacher Told Me. He talks about how American History textbooks cookie-cut history, creating heroes and downplaying not-so-pretty events.

    For example, let’s take Christopher Columbus. Christopher Columbus committed significant amounts of genocide (upwards of one million deaths). We don’t learn that in school, do we? Our history textbooks borderline make up stories about Columbus. For example, one textbook describes Columbus’s landing in the Americans something along the lines of (I don’t have the book at college with me) “For two months, the storm-battered ships had traveled through the Atlantic Ocean, when one morning they finally caught a glimpse of land”. When in reality, Columbus’s ships did not hit any inclimate weather until after they had alright sighted Haiti, and had only been at sea for a little over a mont. (they stopped at the Azores for an extended period of time. It had been 2 months since the sailors had left Spain, but not 2 months at sea.

    This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. You point out very well the reasons we should not tamper with the evidence of history and revise it to read as we please, but rather just take the evidence as given as fact unless outside evidence contradicts it. (For instance, one might assume that Zulu International is a historical place in history until evidence is recorded in different kingdoms around the same said time saying it was a story told to children and not a real event.)

    As with Christopher Columbus and with the Indian resettlements and with how we treated the Japanese in WWII and other such incidents you can plainly see where politically motivated individuals - of theri time - rewrote history to be more appeasing to the people. This is why I wouldn’t trust a historian’s take on Reagan if he was writting it in 2204 only using letters written by Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry for his support. At least, I wouldn’t take his word over someone, who say, was a respected historian who wrote about the incidents as they occurred.



  • @Guerrilla:

    F_alk I am saying that she will obviously stay and the only way to get “rid” of her would be to ban her… I know you see that… but you must be a big dreamer to drean the “impossible”… I think I can honestly say that Jen would consider it an insult of her intelligence to just leave… so she won’t… I can assure you… It seems though that you would rather bombard her with enough “language” to force her out… and to me that is weak in a free forum of discussion…

    We are not American, Canadian, German, French, etc. here we are members of AaA … neither our rights given to us by our constitutionality nor it’s power in our lives do not apply… If you choose to say that the American Constitution supports the slaughter of thousands of Indians you should have all rights to do so… I should have no right to stop you…

    See, its post like that that really steam me. I don’t know, or care if you are American. But if the reverse was true about the horrible crimes committed by other countries in thier histories than others would have a fit. You just used it as “just an example” is BS. Because I have seen with most all of these “American examples” it is about something hugely negative.

    Or maybe I should compare Spain’s government with the COMPLETE genocide of the indians in Mexico. Are the Germans still killing people in concentration camps? How about the benevolant British empire… How is that doing now?

    To compre the Germans now to the Nazis during the holocaust is wrong (60 years ago, some of those people are still alive). But to joke around about our constitution giving the right to kill indians is ok? This isn’t even about insulting my poor sensitivities. It is a double standard plane and simple. Historicaly we have done much less than the rest of the world, just because we have not been around as long. But when our government comes up it is oh so fashionable to talk about slavery, killing the indians, internment camps blah blah blah.

    I have a comparison for you if you want to know what the rest of the world should use when they talk about America.

    If not for American policy you all would be speaking Russian (or maybe german)… and WOW did that country have a high standard of living (and oh so humanitairian). Every time you look in the mirror know that the only reason you have the freedoms that you have is because America defended those freedoms for you.



  • In this case the historian in question is just applying critical thinking to evidence laid out by actual participants and witnesses. This is not what I complain about. (See below for more.)

    He’s not really applying critical thinking period. Your talking about historical commentary. David McCullough tells his stories through primary sources, adding his paraphrasing only when neccessary. You should read some of his books. I suggest Ben Franklin

    As with Christopher Columbus and with the Indian resettlements and with how we treated the Japanese in WWII and other such incidents you can plainly see where politically motivated individuals - of theri time - rewrote history to be more appeasing to the people. This is why I wouldn’t trust a historian’s take on Reagan if he was writting it in 2204 only using letters written by Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry for his support. At least, I wouldn’t take his word over someone, who say, was a respected historian who wrote about the incidents as they occurred.

    Ah, here is where you are wrong. Nobody in Columbus’s time saw anything wrong with what Columbus did. Columbus even wrote about it in his own diary. Problem is, we choose not to teach our students about it.

    There are three kinds of sources. Primary sources, secondary sources, and textbooks or compiled information. A secondary source is written by somebody in that time period about the event, even if they did not specifically participate in it.

    Secondary sources are where people run into trouble. While Primary Sources (Letters, Diaries, etc) give us a firsthand perspective, Secondary Sources add uninformed bias and opinion. However, the best sources to understand whole events are secondary, you just need to choose accurate ones.

    Textbooks are just compiled sources. However, too often these days textbooks used fictional sources.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Yanny:

    In this case the historian in question is just applying critical thinking to evidence laid out by actual participants and witnesses. This is not what I complain about. (See below for more.)

    He’s not really applying critical thinking period. Your talking about historical commentary. David McCullough tells his stories through primary sources, adding his paraphrasing only when neccessary. You should read some of his books. I suggest Ben Franklin

    As with Christopher Columbus and with the Indian resettlements and with how we treated the Japanese in WWII and other such incidents you can plainly see where politically motivated individuals - of theri time - rewrote history to be more appeasing to the people. This is why I wouldn’t trust a historian’s take on Reagan if he was writting it in 2204 only using letters written by Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry for his support. At least, I wouldn’t take his word over someone, who say, was a respected historian who wrote about the incidents as they occurred.

    Ah, here is where you are wrong. Nobody in Columbus’s time saw anything wrong with what Columbus did. Columbus even wrote about it in his own diary. Problem is, we choose not to teach our students about it.

    There are three kinds of sources. Primary sources, secondary sources, and textbooks or compiled information. A secondary source is written by somebody in that time period about the event, even if they did not specifically participate in it.

    Secondary sources are where people run into trouble. While Primary Sources (Letters, Diaries, etc) give us a firsthand perspective, Secondary Sources add uninformed bias and opinion. However, the best sources to understand whole events are secondary, you just need to choose accurate ones.

    Textbooks are just compiled sources. However, too often these days textbooks used fictional sources.

    Okay, but still, in this case, historians are using factual historical data to correct innacuracies in our history. However, there have been many times in our history where historians wiped out evidence or twisted words to show a totally different picture then what actually happened.

    Also, do note, you mentioned that they are using Columbus’ own admissions in his diary. They arn’t finding some esoteric proof that no one can see but themselves to edit the pages of history to repaint the picture of an evil man as a hero or a nobleman as a fiend.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    This is from an edit, but it’s rather high up now and I wanted to make sure F_alk saw where i proved him to be an impetulant child once again, and also wrong once again.

    @Jennifer:

    @F_alk:

    @Guerrilla:

    @F_alk:

    …I am tired of her. I want her to leave. …

    But F_alk regardless of how stupid people talk (in your mind’s eye) they still have a free will to express there views… To just Ban someone because you think they post stupid is like executing someone because they don’t agree with your political party’s platform…
    GG

    sigh
    do i say i want her banned, or do i say i want her to leave ?

    I want her to leave … on her own free will. I thought that was obvious.
    Please, don’t start to put words in my mouth like her.

    PS: she is violating my nation’s constitution by saying part of the genocide did not happen. That is more than a mere “party platform” and an exception to the right of “free speech” over here.

    A) He never, to my knowledge, called for me to be banned. That’s been left to the illustrious Mary.

    B) I didn’t say the genocide didn’t happen. I said it focused on the Jews and Gypsies.

    This is how it started. I made the comment that Americans derive themselves from oppressed people and that’s why many Americans inherently distrust the government and wish to see it shrunk.

    F_alk claimed that Germans were way more oppressed under Hitler then Americans ever were.

    I said that’s not entirely true, that was the Jews and Gypsies primarily.

    He said that I didn’t know what I was talking about and it was all Germans, because his grandfather said so.

    I said that the German people, other then Jews and Gypsies who were stripped of their citizenship and thus, technically, not Germans anymore, were hardly more oppressed then black slaves, Japanese in American concentration camps, Jews and Gypsies in the Nazi death camps, etc.

    He started claiming I called his grandfather a liar.

    later, in a different arguement, I said that there was German resistance to the occupation after WWII. He said there was absolutely none, zero, no resistance what-so-ever to the occupation.

    I pointed out that my family was there and they were under orders to capture nazis. These nazis in return fired upon them, stole, set timed charges in “secure” areas and generally conducted themselves as local terrorists much in the same manner as the French Resistance Cells did in WWII France and a few terrorists do in Iraq.

    He again called my family liars.

    However, I happen to have an actual bullet pulled from a soldier who died capturing a suspected Nazi as he was shot at and killed in 1947. I have other stories written down in journals and told by word of mouth showing that the German resistance in the late 40’s early 50’s was quite a nuissance, but yet he still claims that I lied and he is nothing but a pure and innocent boy who speaks nothing but the truth.

    This is utter, and total, bullsh*t and we all know it, F_alk. Many might not admit it, but you’re so full of it, it’s hard to see out the window anymore it’s so deep.

    Perhaps your sources are bad? I know the German’s have rewritten their history quite a bit and have attempted to crush any sense of German spirit so as to avoid another Hitler comming to power, but that doesn’t mean you can’t go get the facts somewhere else. Read up on it.

    I can help you, if you want. There’s plenty of books at the Russian Library of St. Petersburg (formerly Lenningrad where Stalin placed many old WWII journals from his soldiers on display) where you can read all about the German terrorists in World War II and how the Germans raped and murdered civilians in Russia on purpose and with malice aforethought. How the Germans employed actual torture tactics against young children in front of their fathers, dismembering, raping and sometimes killing them to extract information.

    Maybe, just maybe, then you’ll understand what real persecution by the state is and what really happened in your country after the war. Do you think it was an accident that Russians hated you so much that they’d rather machine gun your citizens in the streets then capture them? Do you, maybe, understand why they had to be stopped by the British and Americans (and Canadians, Australians, etc, etc, etc) from doing just that?

    There are some who say we should have let them. If they were all like you, maybe that’s true. But I have reason to believe you arn’t the majority there, just the loudest, so it’s probably a good thing we didn’t. After all, if they had obliterated the Germans we might not have Volkswagons, BMWs or really good chocolate!



  • I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I!!??!?

    Sorry just had to toss that out…:D



  • Well, the Columbus problem is a semi-unique one. Columbus has become a near-mythic creature. Just some facts that Lies my teacher told me disputes, citing primary sources (mostly Columbus’s diary).

    1. Columbus [and the people back in Spain] had no reason to believe that the world was flat. It had been a commonly accepted fact among sailors and scientists since the time of ancient Greece.

    2. Columbus knew that there was a giant landmass where America is. He made a trip to Scandanavia immediately before his voyage and had contact with Viking sailors who had explored the continent (and settled on it).

    3. Columbus’s crew was never near mutiny, despite 5 in 12 (or something like that) textbooks claiming so. Columbus says nothing in his diaries about any discomfort among the sailors.

    4. Many textbooks write about Columbus encoding his nautical charts in order to make his men think that they had not traveled very far. In reality, he changed them to conceal the location of the new continent.

    5. Columbus did not die a poor, broken, unadmired man. He died rich (from Gold which he mined with enslaved Haitians), and was bestowed the title “Admiral of the Seas”, a title which his ancestor still wears.

    6. Columbus set up a death-camp/mine where millions (yes, millions) of Native Americans worked until they died. (He also goes in to explain how the Native American populations are incredibly under-exaggerated). Nearly every single native Haitian lost their lives.

    Remember, when writing about President Bush, his President documents become incredibly important. Problem is, Bush signed an executed order saying that he (the first President ever to do so) does not have to release the documents.



  • Jennifer, Falk, I’m locking this thread the moment either of you address each other again.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Yanny:

    Well, the Columbus problem is a semi-unique one. Columbus has become a near-mythic creature. Just some facts that Lies my teacher told me disputes, citing primary sources (mostly Columbus’s diary).

    1. Columbus [and the people back in Spain] had no reason to believe that the world was flat. It had been a commonly accepted fact among sailors and scientists since the time of ancient Greece.

    2. Columbus knew that there was a giant landmass where America is. He made a trip to Scandanavia immediately before his voyage and had contact with Viking sailors who had explored the continent (and settled on it).

    3. Columbus’s crew was never near mutiny, despite 5 in 12 (or something like that) textbooks claiming so. Columbus says nothing in his diaries about any discomfort among the sailors.

    4. Many textbooks write about Columbus encoding his nautical charts in order to make his men think that they had not traveled very far. In reality, he changed them to conceal the location of the new continent.

    5. Columbus did not die a poor, broken, unadmired man. He died rich (from Gold which he mined with enslaved Haitians), and was bestowed the title “Admiral of the Seas”, a title which his ancestor still wears.

    6. Columbus set up a death-camp/mine where millions (yes, millions) of Native Americans worked until they died. (He also goes in to explain how the Native American populations are incredibly under-exaggerated). Nearly every single native Haitian lost their lives.

    Remember, when writing about President Bush, his President documents become incredibly important. Problem is, Bush signed an executed order saying that he (the first President ever to do so) does not have to release the documents.

    That’s all very interesting, and I’m sure factual as well. But doesn’t this prove my point that the revisionist historians of the 18th and 19th centuries (1700-1899) were re-writing history to be in line with what the people wanted instead of what was true and factual?



  • Well, in terms of Columbus, (I’m a little sketchy on this part), I believe much of our modern interpretation arose during the Spanish-American war. For some reason, we created Columbus Day during this time, and distorted history.

    Point is, a good historian wouldn’t write a textbook with some of the crap that gets in there. If you ignore the compiled sources, you won’t get any of this.



  • @Jennifer:

    @F_alk:

    PS: she is violating my nation’s constitution by saying **part of the genocide did not happen.

    B) I didn’t say the genocide didn’t happen. I said it focused on the Jews and Gypsies.

    Stop putting words in my mouth.
    Or start to read
    Or start to think … but that would hurt your head too much, wouldn’t it?

    F_alk claimed that Germans were way more oppressed under Hitler then Americans ever were.

    CC made the connection to the german people.

    I said that’s not entirely true, that was the Jews and Gypsies primarily.

    **STOP

    edit

    LYING

    You said that NOONE apart from Jews and Gypsies suffered in the Holocaust. You didn’t use “focused” or “primarily”, you said ONLY these two groups died inthe camps. You said germans did not suffer and were not persecuted by Nazis.

    He said that I didn’t know what I was talking about and it was all Germans, because his grandfather said so.

    **STOP

    edit

    LYING

    **STOP

    edit

    LYING

    **STOP

    edit

    LYING

    You have no idea about my grandfather.

    I said that the German people, other then Jews and Gypsies who were stripped of their citizenship and thus, technically, not Germans anymore, were hardly more oppressed then black slaves, Japanese in American concentration camps, Jews and Gypsies in the Nazi death camps, etc.

    **STOP

    edit

    LYING
    YOU did not say any of that ….
    and do you even think before you type ? You just said
    “German people …were hardly more oppressed then …Jews and Gypsies in the Nazi death camps” …
    Apart from that YOU NEVER SAID THIS, how can anybody be more oppressed than in a Nazi death camp ?

    Just leave … let me have 17 nice weeks.

    He started claiming I called his grandfather a liar.

    You said that the germans were not persecuted by the Nazi regime. With that you call my grand-dad a liar.

    later, in a different arguement, I said that there was German resistance to the occupation after WWII. He said there was absolutely none, zero, no resistance what-so-ever to the occupation.

    non-sequitor … and
    **STOP

    edit

    LYING
    and
    STOP SIDESTEPPING.
    We gave you links to allied forces official records. The resistance was absolutely negligible.

    I pointed out that my family was there and they were under orders to capture nazis. These nazis in return fired upon them, stole, set timed charges in “secure” areas and generally conducted themselves as local terrorists much in the same manner as the French Resistance Cells did in WWII France and a few terrorists do in Iraq.

    He again called my family liars.

    First, you talked of the OVERALL ALLIED occupation. Suddenly, you mean only the soviet one. …
    I did not call your family liars. “Negligible” means that an incident as you have described can happen. But it did not happen on a daily and widespread basis as it does in Iraq today. That comparison was what was attacked and still doesn’t hold. I never said though that your family did not encounter criminals.
    They were petty criminals (“black loot, whites look for food”) and not Nazis.

    However, I happen to have an actual bullet pulled from a soldier who died capturing a suspected Nazi as he was shot at and killed in 1947. I have other stories written down in journals and told by word of mouth showing that the German resistance in the late 40’s early 50’s was quite a nuissance, but yet he still claims that I lied and he is nothing but a pure and innocent boy who speaks nothing but the truth.

    RESISTANCE OF NAZIS IN THE 50s ?

    REALLY ?
    1949: GDR and FRG are founded. Government is taken over fully by germans again.
    RESISTANCE OF NAZIS ???

    No, you don’t lie. You believe what you say. But you are plain stupid. You would lose chess against a slice of bread.

    Next is that you claim the insurgency in the GDR on the 17th June 1953 against the DIVIDE OF GERMANY and against the POOR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE and policy of the GDR was actually a revolt of Nazis.

    There was resistance against the soviets: Yes
    IT WAS NOT RESISTANCE BY NAZIS.

    Last: you said i claimed your family lied. I did not do so.
    I do believe that you lie, and frequently. The reasoning for that i gave before the virus hit and i am not eager to repeat it.
    I did not discredit your family though.

    Perhaps your sources are bad? …
    I can help you, if you want. There’s plenty of books …
    Maybe, just maybe, then you’ll understand what real persecution by the state is and what really happened in your country after the war.

    I take it you hate the germans not because me, but because of what we did in the war. If not, then you are about the sickest mind i can fathom:
    You then don’t care about all the atrocities to real human beings, but about
    one person who happens to dislike a concept that you hold in high esteem.
    That would be disgusting.

    Do you think it was an accident that Russians hated you so much that they’d rather machine gun your citizens in the streets then capture them? Do you, maybe, understand why they had to be stopped by the British and Americans (and Canadians, Australians, etc, etc, etc) from doing just that?

    And you say my history books were re-written ???
    Alone technically what you stated above is quite impossible. How many western-allied soldiers fought on the eastern front and could stop soviet soldiers from revenging (by committing the same arocities that were commited against their people first?)

    And i still wonder why “shot in the streets” is more oppression than “starved to death in a camp”.

    Jen … go away. Please.
    And don’t come back.
    Find yourself a new MORPG and stay there.**************



  • and now lock this please….


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 56
  • 21
  • 23
  • 12
  • 17
  • 19
  • 11
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games

41
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts