The tragedy of WW11.

Discussion in 'General' started by hengest, Jul 11, 2004.

  1. hengest

    hengest Discharged

    England and France declared war upon Germany because they invaded Poland.
    Yet when Soviet Russia also invaded three weaks later, there was no move against them. Why not?
    At the end of the war; Poland was handed over to the communists. So what the hell was that war for?! Eh? Eh?
     
  2. The war in my opinion was not over the invasion of Poland but more over the fact that realisation had dawned that Germany was going to go on invading countires regardless of what had been promised months before.

    I may be wrong but when Chamberlain came back from Munich he said peace in our time to the public yet to his cabinet he declarded that they must prepare for war. Has anyone else heard this story?

    Unlike WW1 where there was less apparant lines of good and evil, WW2 was about just that, an evil regieme being stopped. Not that the Soviet one was not evil but a less apparant urgent one.


    regards
    Arm.
     
  3. salientpoints

    salientpoints Senior Member

    Originally posted by hengest@Jul 11 2004, 05:27 AM
    England and France declared war upon Germany because they invaded Poland.
    Yet when Soviet Russia also invaded three weaks later, there was no move against them. Why not?
    At the end of the war; Poland was handed over to the communists. So what the hell was that war for?! Eh? Eh?
    Why do you persist in pointless posts written purely to try and stir up people on the forum and lead to antagonistic views?

    Your posts will be deleted unless you can provide something positive to the forum.

    Regards

    Ryan
     
  4. Wise1

    Wise1 There We Are Then

    I have to agree with Ryan, if your trying to encite a particular reaction with your posts then I think you will find that our members are better than that.

    Perhaps even if you could explain to us where your coming from with these posts, what your interests in ww2 are then we might understand your angle a bit more clearly and respond more positively.
     
  5. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Yes, I just read all four of this guy's posts, and he's obviously a neo-Nazi engaged in about the only activity neo-Nazis are capable of in this day and age: sparking off a pointless confrontation.

    As neo-Nazis know darned well that their likelihood of actually taking power or leading useful lives are both nil, they try to give themselves an exaggerated sense of self-importance through pointless ritual, repeatedly spouting the same stale slogans, and verbal or physical confrontation with preferably defenseless enemies, which usually leads to tragedy.

    It also often leads, as I've read, to the various members of the neo-Nazi cult betraying each other in the trial, turning Crown or State's Evidence in the court case about their murders and acts of vandalism, ratting out their leaders and cohorts. Another fate that befalls these folks is that their organizations splinter apart as they denounce each other as informers, traitors, or government spies. Odd that people and organizations who blather on about racial unity and loyalty can't seem to show much of it in real life.

    And in fact, Hengest is so proud of his claims, that he doesn't put his name or home upon them. So much for accountability or standing up for his views.

    Freedom of speech also gives people the right to turn down volume on stuff they don't want to hear and to ask disruptive individuals to leave the room. There are heaps of sites where Hengest and like-minded squirrels can shriek at each other.
     
  6. DirtyDick

    DirtyDick Senior Member

    Pity also he didn't know that, phonetically, 'hengest' roughly translates from Hebrew as 'ignorant person who is probably gay and has to act very aggressively in order to compensate'.

    I wonder what Freud would have made of it, although he probably doesn't like Freud either because of his racial origin?


    Richard
     
  7. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    I'm reading a fascinating book, called "The Racist Mind," by Harvard psychologist Raphael Ezekiel. He went to neo-Nazi convocations, interviewed their leaders, and interviewed their followers at length, trying to figure out how their minds work.

    One of the biggest things he pointed up was the intellectual sterility of the organizations and their members: they spout the same stuff over and over and over again, and have no other program than rallies, ritual, and confrontational events that may briefly feed their egos, but do nothing to advance their cause in the long run. Their answer to America's economic problems is to hold a cross-burning. Or a "rally" in the mountains somewhere, where speakers drone on for days about Jewish evil, repeating themselves and each other.

    That's all very jolly, but the member who attends the bash doesn't come out of it with much more than a lot of pamphlets.

    Another point he made is that the neo-Nazis, for all their rhetoric of racial solidarity, betray and deceive each other at the drop of a coin. They try to steal each other's members, mailing lists, and money. When they get arrested by the police for horrific incidents, they invariably rat each other out. Some of them who don't fink at the time often do so years later. The leaders also invariably turn out to be self-centered, cynical egotists, who use their operation as a means to fluff up their own undeserved sense of importance and fatten their own wallet.

    The intellectual sterility is the big one, though. These clowns haven't had a new idea since the Czar's Okhrana wrote "Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion." Heck, even "Mein Kampf" is a regurgitation of that.

    Ezekiel's main point is that these neo-Nazi jerks waste their lives and abilities in this endless cycle of hate, ritual, pointless confrontation, living in misery. Uneducated, mis-educated, poorly educated, often heavily involved with drugs and booze, they would be incapable of running the society they dream about creating. They really just want everyone to be as miserable as them.

    Very sad stuff. But fascinating at the same time...wondering how and why people in a modern society can get that way...locked into neo-Nazi hate and rhetoric.
     
  8. DirtyDick

    DirtyDick Senior Member

    I too share your observations; whenever a politician (of any sorts) talks of 'they', 'them' etc. without any further qualification for their beliefs it becomes most apparent and, to me, uncomfortable.

    I suppose as with many newspapers (especially tabloids, at least in the UK) it merely feeds the readers' prejudices and comfirms rather than challenges - the route to any progression - existing beliefs; and usually given as a reason for people's woes.

    Freedom of speech is indivisible, in my opinion, and I believe you can only counter through deductive logic such simplistic mantras in order to limit their appeal; censorship is dangerous and only fuels paranoia.

    Was it Spike Milligan who said that Hitler would have never come to power if people had the good sense to laugh at their silly uniforms and their pomposity?

    Richard
     
  9. Rebel

    Rebel Junior Member

    The agreement stated that Britain would support Poland if they were attacked by GERMANY not USSR.
     
  10. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by DirtyDick@Aug 27 2004, 06:43 PM

    Was it Spike Milligan who said that Hitler would have never come to power if people had the good sense to laugh at their silly uniforms and their pomposity?

    Richard
    [post=27756]Quoted post[/post]


    Absolutely true. Mel Brooks said the same thing. He argued that the best way to deal with the visceral fear the Nazis created (particularly in his generation) was to laugh at them as hard as possible, and make them ridiculous. It really works.
     

Share This Page