TrueScotsman
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan, the Indians are off the reservation again. This thread is meant to deal with the Ukraine conflict. Not a single post on page 156 is relevant. Care to keep your troops in line?
“If Stalin’s name has again come to the fore, it is as a saint of the Russian Church, in ikons and holding a cross, with angels overhead. Also, St. Seraphim of Sarov, a Russian equivalent to Francis of Assisi, has been pronounced patron saint of nuclear weapons.”
What the hell are you smoking?
“Ps can’t we move the marginal (to this thread) dealing with TrueStalinist to a new thread of its own.”
Lol. Mine very own thread where you can bitch and moan about me? What an honor. I’m actually far more interested in the Ukraine conflict but you guys go for it. Knock yourselves out.
“I explained the constitutional position of the Polish government that refute’s Furr’s case that there was not a government.”
And you’d be wrong. This from “Great Britain, The Soviet Union and the Polish Government in Exile” Chapter 2.
“The Polish government decided to move to neutral Rumania with the intention to proceed to France and there to re-establish its operation…The seemingly uncomplicated passage through Rumania, however, turned out to be a controversial matter culminating in the downfall of the prewar government…On Sept 18…Each minister (of the Polish government) was asked to resign and pass through Rumania as a private citizen. When the Poles refused to comply they were interned…For practical purposes there was no government after September 17, since the interned officials could not function as the constitutional authority.”
You have used Wikipedia as your source. It is not reliable, especially regarding ww2 and the Soviet Union.
“You suggest that Poland’s government should have relocated to the USSR. How did that pan out?”
It would have been the honorable thing to do.
“No point in continuing your revisionist history conspiracy. The Katyn Massacre was perpetuated by the Soviets. The documents are there and accepted as genuine by scholars and more importantly the Russian government.”
No, it was the Nazis. The “scholars” are careerists and liars more worried about job prospects and axes to grind than the truth.
“Furr is an out-lier and most likely an outright liar.”
He has tenure in a separate field and therefore is not in fear of losing his job as would happen to any “Soviet scholar” who dared address the truth of the matter.
“He is pseudo-historian cherry-picking his evidence to prove a hypothesis instead of following evidence to develop one.”
He does nothing of the sort. If you are so sure of your position I challenge you to contact him and challenge him directly rather than snipe at him behind his back. He answers emails.
“The CPGB was following the instructions of Comintern in being anti-war at first. Actually, it was pro-war initially but reversed its position to anti-war when told by Comintern.”
As I’d suspected. What of it?
““Should the Soviet Union have allowed the Nazis to occupy the entirety of former Polish territory? Yes or no?”
My answer is the same as if Germany had invaded Britain. It is the same as I have for the Ukrainians facing occupation by Russia which I have already stated. The answer is yes.”
Well, thankfully you weren’t in charge. You know of Generalplan Ost and you say “yes”. Unbelievable.
“There are many ways of resisting oppression by civil disobedience when there is a determined opposition.”
Lol, the Nazis would just put you in an oven. Civil disobedience doesn’t work with genocidal fascists.
“Thomas More has already mentioned Denmark’s response where Jews went unmolested and did not need to wear the yellow star.”
They just didn’t have time to get around to them. But they would have. You know that, right?
“No point in referring to GPO and the Holocaust and other secret plans as justification for the war. Those were not the motives but the consequences of it.”
Huh? the Holocaust and Ost are why the Nazis had to be defeated on the battlefield.
“The Nazis managed to maintain control with the propaganda line that it was a war of defence, just as all other belligerent nations do.”
There you go again, being a liberal. Russia is actually Nazi Germany, don’t you know?
“If the enemy does not fight, Goebbels would not have been able to convince Germany to make war.”
Alan’s pro-tips. When attacked by Nazis roll over and die. Great advice. Lol
“In the spirit of cooperation and harmony therefore I will refrain from calling True Scotsman a Smeggy Bell End, I will simply allow his postings to reinforce my viewpoint.”
So does Bojo Brains get chastised and have to sit in the naughty corner with me now?
I was called names first starting with a “fascist” a “fool” and “sickening”. Go back and check for yourself. Given that reception is it any wonder my tone shifted? Perhaps a little introspection is called for on behalf of your fellow liberals, and blame spread a bit more evenly.
“TS -Do you really believe that you’re exceptional in some way?”
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king and you lot are about as blind as Ray Charles after quafing a bottle of overproof rum.
Pretty much only Alan has the stones to actually argue anything substantive and he does that so poorly I wonder if he’s had a recent traumatic brain injury. The rest of you just bandy about insults or name drop long dead nobodies. This thread is about the conflict in Ukraine for fucks sake but it barely rates a mention. You’re like a bunch of toddlers distracted by mum’s car keys.
If you lot are trying to wear me down with inanity it’s beginning to work. Not one of you is my equal intellectually. I guess I won’t be sharpening my blade much more on this wetstone. Do try harder folks.
““But my question was why did the Communist Party oppose the war from 1939 – 1941 when several European nations had been attacked, invaded and occupied.”
TS responds “Why should the Soviets have gone to their rescue?”
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the CPGB, not the Soviet Union.”
Clear as mud. How should I know the answer to that question? I’m not British. Look into it yourself. My only guess is the reasons I’ve already provided.
“An imperialist war suddenly transformed into a Great Patriotic Anti-Nazi war in 1941.”
It was still an imperialist war. Nothing changed.
“The non-existence of the Polish government.
Indeed the Polish government did flee to Romania, when USSR invaded and it became a 2-front war.”
The Soviets never invaded. If they had, Britain would’ve have been obliged to declare war on the Soviet Union also. They didn’t because it wasn’t an invasion.
“Up to then, Poland’s government was still operating”
You are rewriting history. The Red Army crossed the border when the Polish government fled. Armies serve governments. With no state to serve the Polish army had no legal status. It’s troops were now nothing more than an armed mob. The Polish government was the most cowardly of WW2. It was the only government to voluntarily intern itself. By doing so it guaranteed the obliteration of its country.
“and its armed forces were still fighting until 6 Oct.”
They had no legal status. Legally, the army was nothing more than an armed mob.
“In Romania it was interned stopping any government function.”
Yes, because they were cowards. Had they fled to the Soviet side of the river their country would have remained.
“On September 30, Ignacy Mościcki, President of Poland who was interned in Rumania, handed over his Office to Władysław Raczkiewicz, who managed to get to France.
This was done in accordance with art.24 of the Polish Constitution of 1935 which states that in time of war the term of the President’s office shall be prolonged to three months after the conclusion of peace and that the President by a special act appoints his successor in case the office falls vacant before the conclusion of peace. Art.24 thus preserves the continuity of the office of the President of the Republic of Poland, the source of constitutional authority and the continuity of successive Polish governments. The President is the Head of State. The President is the embodiment of sovereignty and continuity of State authority.
The Parliament of the Republic of Poland was dissolved by President Raczkiewicz in Paris, in November 1939. In its place, a National Council was formed, as an advisory body to the President.
On October 1 in Paris, a Government in Exile, with Sikorski as prime minister is sworn in and the United States and France officially recognised the government.”
All irrelevant.
Allan, you dodged my question. Should the Soviet Union have allowed the Nazis to occupy the entirety of former Polish territory? Yes or no?
“This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.”
My God you’re dim. Did your parents do nothing but drop you on your head as a child Bojo Brains?
How can I have misrepresented your argument if I didn’t even represent it?
“But there’s no depth to discuss with TS, because he is following an ideology, unlike us.”
Rubbish. Your ideology is liberalism couched in pseudo-leftist rhetoric. But at the end of the day, garden variety liberalism. Go on, link to another Guardian of BBC article. I just can’t wait to hear the real dope.
“🙂 🙂 It is clear you also don’t understand the concept of Irony!”
One of the cultists actually has a sense of humor. You got me. Fuck face.
“Generalplan Ost was a top-secret plan and not known to the Soviets.”
And how is that in anyway whatsoever relevant to the point that I’d made about the Nazis conducting a war of extermination?
“It was a strictly confidential document, and its contents were known only to those in the topmost level of the Nazi hierarchy.”
Relevant how?
“The war was one of self-defence to maintain Soviet sovereignty.”
Against a foe that was conducting a genocidal war of extermination against them. That is not happening in Ukraine in case you hadn’t noticed.
“The very same reason given by the Ukrainian government.”
The fascist Ukrainian state that began a war of annihilation against its own citizens in 2014 and was in the process or launching its final solution of the Donbass problem forcing the Russian intervention. You kind of forgot that bit.
“And in the propaganda war both sides allege genocide intentions of the other.”
I see. The Jews say there was a holocaust, the Nazis say there wasn’t. Darn, shucks. I guess we’ll just never know.
“As for the Polish interpretation of the proposed Anglo-French-Soviet pact, the condition of the right of occupation of Polish (and Romanian) territory was viewed as the reason Poland rejected it”
Yep, they thought they wouldn’t be able to hold on to their ill gotten loot. And how did that turn out for them?
“They were confirmed when Soviet forces invaded Poland and partitioned it with Germany.”
Historical revisionism and base lies. The Soviets did not invade Poland. Poland had ceased to exist as a state when its cowardly government fled into voluntary exile in Romania. It was only then that the Red army moved in to prevent a Nazi occupation of the entire territory. Territory which had been conquered by Poland during the Russian civil war. Stalin intended for the Polish government to flee east of the Vistula and form a new government there under Soviet protection. A buffer against the Nazis. That was the whole point of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, to create a sphere of influence where the Nazis could not step foot.
“The Soviet Union annexed 52.1% of Poland’s territory, with over 13,700,000 people: 38% Poles (ca. 5.1 million people), 37% Ukrainians, 14.5% Belarusians, 8.4% Jews, 0.9% Russians and 0.6% Germans.”
Yes or no, was most of that territory formerly Russian and conquered by Poland during the Civil war? I guess you’d have preferred it was annexed by the Nazis rather than its rightful owners? Of course you would. You think the Soviets just should have surrendered because Ost was secret don’t you know! Lol
“The number of Poles deported to Siberia or Central Asia between 1939 and 1941 has been estimated at from under 500,000 to over 1,500,000”
To avoid an ethnic cleansing. The Polish congenitally despise the Russian people and their government was largely fascist. Their government, hyena like, tore chunks out of Czechoslovakia and was even in negotiations to join the Axis however talks broke down over the status of Danzig.
“Between 1939 and the beginning of Operation Barbarossa approximately 500,000 Ukrainians would be deported to Siberia and central Asia.”
You mean OUN Banderites and fascists? Poor fascists.
“But my question was why did the Communist Party oppose the war from 1939 – 1941 when several European nations had been attacked, invaded and occupied.”
Why should the Soviets have gone to their rescue? Those very same countries had all invaded the Soviet Union on the side of the Whites, spurned all attempts at collective security agreements in the League of Nations and the proposal of the million man army, were actively allowing and even participating in the rearming of Germany and were encouraging Hitler’s war mongering provided it was directed East. Finally, the Soviets weren’t ready. The Germans had the most powerful army in the Europe and were joined by eleven European allies. The Soviets were in the middle of reorganising the Red Army and had a deficit in war material.
“Why then do you persist in engaging with members of this forum, not once but twice?”
As much as I find you contemptible this is one of the few forums where I am not banned. People usually find the truth too abrasive. It upsets their sensibilities.
“What is your purpose in wasting your time and energy with those you hold in contempt and have no respect for?”
There’s no fun in joining an echo chamber. You can not sharpen your arguments if you’re only surrounded by those who agree with you.
“I agree I did not ask about a specific law, that is because my original posting asked ”do you approve of Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?””
His personal opinions are neither here nor there. What matters is policy.
“It might be an idea to answer the questions put in from of you.”
It appears to me that you are conflating Putin’s personal opinions with public policy. The two do not go hand in hand.
“A clearer example of the straw man fallacy would be difficult to devise.”
Except I made no strawman.
“So for the sake of clarity I am now asking you if you concur with Putin’s views, as stated regarding degradation and degeneration quoted above?”
And I repeat, it’s policy that is important.
“So I will ask you directly do you think that the promotion of LBGT rights is harmful to children and if so do you agree with the legal ban on this put in place by the Putin Government?”
To be honest, it doesn’t really concern me one way or the other whether gay rights are taught in high school.
“I wrote -“Do you agree with Putin that children can be “taught that a boy can become a girl and vice versa” is monstrous and “on the verge of a crime against humanity.” Quoted and backed up with video footage by the FT.””
Your response is “His views are his own”
My response – The are indeed his own; however the question was about your views.”
My views on the matter aren’t important either, public policy is.
“What are your views about this matter?”
As I said, it isn’t of much concern to me. If homosexuality was actively punished I would find that objectionable. But it isn’t.
“I wrote “in 2015 Russia also introduced a driving ban prohibiting people with “sexual disorders” including people who were transsexual or transgender. Do you approve those bans TS?”
Your response was “ICD-10 especially stresses that sexual orientation by itself isn’t considered a personality disorder.” “It sounds like there’s an awful lot of leeway regarding the decree. Again, homosexuality is not criminalised in RF.”
My response is to repeat the question, do you agree with driving bans being put in place for people who are transsexual or transgendered?”
I believe I said I thought the ban rather silly.
“Again ignoring your straw man argument,”
Again, I never made a straw man argument. A strawman argument is when you create a caricature of your opponents views and then ridicule that caricature. I made no caricature of your argument, therefore it is impossible that I have strawmanned you. Do you follow?
“my original question was not about homosexuality being banned in Russia,”
I know. But what do I care what anybodies’ personal views are. The only thing that concerns me are actions.
“it was asking you if you agreed with “Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?” it is possible to be discriminatory without putting in place a full ban.”
No one is being discriminated against by a failure to teach gay rights in schools.
“The Apartheid regime did not ban people from being black, but it was discriminatory.”
Lol. So not including gay rights in the high school syllabus is equivalent to apartheid? Are you listening to yourself?
I wrote “Do you, TS, agree with the statement of Yelena Mizulina Chairman of The Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, that “Traditional sexual relations are relations between a man and a woman. These relations need special protection”.”
Your response – “What matters are the laws. Homosexuality is not illegal in RF.”
My response is again restating that you have put forward a straw man argument.
Erm, no, I haven’t.
I finally wrote – “Perhaps you also agree with her stance on decriminalising Domestic Violence categorised as “first assaults which cause less serious injuries””
Your response “Do stay on topic.”
My response – I wrote “perhaps you also agree” that was an attempt to expand rather than change the topic, however just to be clear, I would appreciate (and I am sure other readers will equally be interested in seeing) your response to this topic as well.
Erm, this is a thread about the conflit in Ukraine. Not the gays.
“My response is to repeat the question, do you agree with driving bans being put in place for people who are transesual or trnasgendered?”
And I already answered you. I think it rather silly. But I can’t comment on the law without knowing how or even if it is being enforced.
“To clarify your responses further, my original question was not about homosexuality being banned in Russia, it was asking you if you agreed with “Putin’s discriminatory stance towards non heterosexual people or not?””
You are a bore. Putin’s personal opinions are his own. They have not translated into the outlawing of homosexuality. What else matters?
“it is possible to be discriminatory without putting in place a full ban. The Apartheid regime did not ban pepople from being black, but it was discriminatory.”
Lol, Russia is South Africa for the gays…Riiiiight.
“You also have moved from my original question “Putin’s stance” to policy and finally on to illegality, your difficulty in answering these questions is clear to anyone reading.”
There’s only one reason why Putin’s stance on homosexuality is given any attention and it is to demonise the man and by extension Russia. It’s classic liberal bait and switch. While liberals cheer on wars of aggression that have torn dozens of nations of to shreds, have implemented policies that have condemned vast swathes of humanity to poverty and penury they say ignore all that you whataboutist, at least we don’t hate the gays! Well congratulations for being a a good little liberal. You want a gold star stamp, champ?
“I’ve got to say with your misleading responses, I am even starting to even wonder whether or not you are really even a Scotsman!”
My Lord, you aren’t the sharpest tool in the toolbox are you? The True Scotsman is a kind of logical fallacy. Look it up when you’re taking a gander at the strawman fallacy which you also know nothing about.
