oh i get it
SE TO HEMATE I'[ Mill
ME "rtal, iii EYE
ME "rtal, iii EYE
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
69 comments displayed.
#7 to #6
-
thewhitedouche (11/02/2015) [-]
Well during and after WW2 there where Polish refugees in Russia living in concentration and "work" camps like Gulag, and not for being jews which some of them probably where, but for being against the communistic regime, and for not wanting to participate in fighting for the Russian army.
#34 to #7
-
anon (11/03/2015) [-]
Im sorry, Im not pro-stalin in any way but how is that worse. Yeah a lot of people died at gulags but that was from the rough conditions not purposeful killing. Not to mention Russia has a long history of sending people it doesnt like to Siberia, long before stalin. That being said he exiled a ton of people of there including a lot of the settlers of Crimea. Not to mention that the polish were helping the Nazis against the Russians, so you are telling me someone sending you to death camps for simply existing is better than someone sending you to Siberia and possibly work camps for aiding the Nazis and being against the Regime? Do you even remember the social climate during that era, everyone on the allied side hated the nazis how do you expect a government like the USSR to deal with that issue. The US didnt have to deal with antiamerican partisans during or after the war and it still sent the Japs to internment camps. Look at history in the appropriate context, and stop trying to make nazis not as bad as "blank."
#73 to #34
-
thewhitedouche (11/03/2015) [-]
So if you had to choose from taking a bullet to the head or work your ass off, starving and freezing to death, you would choose the later?
#43 to #8
-
nanako (11/03/2015) [-] millions starved due to forced relocation into areas where they had no food and/or couldn't produce enough.
From that alone, stalin's killcount was higher than everything hitler was ever accused of put together.
And that's not even counting the purges, or the human wave tactics
From that alone, stalin's killcount was higher than everything hitler was ever accused of put together.
And that's not even counting the purges, or the human wave tactics
#56 to #7
-
anon (11/03/2015) [-]
Forgive me for saying you don't know what you are talking about. How can you describe something so similar to what hitler did (He didn't only target the Jews and let's not forget his medical experiments that have ever so advanced us.) and even hint to it being worse than what he did. **** the numbers, those experiments are ****** up. The Jews killed Jesus
#53 to #39
-
anon (11/03/2015) [-]
See this seems a little dumb. Like Hideki Tojo being on there, for example. He was a Prime Minister, appointed by a democratic system. By that logic FDR or Truman should be on there for the millions of Japanese killed in WW2. And as for Mao that was people who died under his rule, which is a pretty meaningless statistic to use. Just because people die of starvation, for example, that doesn't mean whatever ruler they have is to blame because he could've inherited a **** country to begin with. We don't look at disease and starvation deaths in the Congo and say their leader killed those people. Was Mao the one pushing all the changes? Sure, but things like that are tricky if you can argue that it's for the good of the country. For example, we wouldn't put a Lincoln kill count on a list like that even though he's the one who OK'd the Civil War in which something like 600,000 Americans died. The only reason we consider Lincoln a great man is because he made a necessary sacrifice for the future of the country, and I think from a Chinese perspective Mao could be seen the exact same way.
#55 to #53
-
electricclover (11/03/2015) [-]
Forgot to log in; reply to this if you want to discuss it
#71 to #69
-
electricclover (11/03/2015) [-]
Yeah but you could argue whether it was for the future good or not. Ironically the biggest problem in China is overpopulation so as callous as it sounds maybe deaths could help.
#72 to #11
-
thewhitedouche (11/03/2015) [-]
Not politics, social nationalism always win over communism.
#5 to #2
-
lathyrusvii (11/02/2015) [-] It's to ' hell, ' isn't it? That's where the ticket is for, right?
... Got another?
... Got another?
#64 to #29
-
lathyrusvii (11/03/2015) [-] That's what I meant, but... augh. I screwed up. **** happens. I hadn't even read the ticket before... two minutes ago.
#61 to #38
-
lathyrusvii (11/03/2015) [-] ... I... actually didn't realize that. I didn't read. I had.. .assumed, from context clues.
#36 to #31
-
ogthegreat (11/03/2015) [-] No it's not since the only one who can literally be Hitler is Hitler. It would be correct if it said "basically" instead.
#50 to #36
-
traveltech (11/03/2015) [-] But he's literally talking about Hitler, because he's the one who did in fact literally use chemicals to kill Polish people.
#48 to #42
-
amsel (11/03/2015) [-] The word "literally" should almost never be used, and calling this "correct" use of the word is only halfway true. If the statement could read exactly the same with no change in meaning by removing the word, then it is just redundant. I guess in this case it is a matter of opinion - I personally don't think there's a way for someone to figuratively "be" Hitler - you would say "That person is like Hitler" or "that person is a Nazi." Saying somebody would "literally be Hitler" does not mean anything different to me than "you would be Hitler," so it is pointlessly redundant (which usually means incorrect in English). I wish people would save the word "literally" for literary discussions, and not use it as a colloquial way to imply an exclamation.
#15
-
scruffyguy (11/02/2015) [-]
yeah that was pretty neat when the allies promised to back Poland up in whatever war they entered but never backed them up against the Soviet Union.
#60 to #57
-
tomthehippie (11/03/2015) [-] People from Poland and called Polish.
Therefore; if you remove polish with chemicals, it's all good man. You use chemicals to remove the Polish, you done ******** up.
Click to show spoiler
Therefore; if you remove polish with chemicals, it's all good man. You use chemicals to remove the Polish, you done ******** up.
#65
-
deutschblut (11/03/2015) [-] Oh the racism of these jewish posts pretending to be funny racists, feeding into the holohoax culture...
Hitler never used chemicals on the Polish.
Hitler never invaded Poland.
Hitler went on a charitable mission of Love to rescue his Folk that were being abused and persecuted in German Land that had recently been stolen by the jews and given to the newly founded nation of Poland.
Even cats love Nazis
Hitler never used chemicals on the Polish.
Hitler never invaded Poland.
Hitler went on a charitable mission of Love to rescue his Folk that were being abused and persecuted in German Land that had recently been stolen by the jews and given to the newly founded nation of Poland.
Even cats love Nazis
#68 to #54
-
deutschblut (11/03/2015) [-] He did not kill either.
Just put jewpoles in German land to work temporarily.
Just put jewpoles in German land to work temporarily.
