BATE 1-0 Arsenal (1st Leg) - Thursday 14th February, 2019

[Inverted]

1 hour ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

It's not that 'the soviets were worse' Stalin was just directly responsible for more deaths (mostly his own as well). This is a historical fact. So if you wanna measure in corpses I guess then by all means, go ahead.

 

But I'm sure an air headed socialist like you will put all those poor dead unionists down to 'evil cold war capitalist propaganda'. 

History doesn't deal in pretty solutions to catastrophic problems. 

The Stalinist USSR was a brutal regime, and the Red Army committed atrocities. But any large military force will have elements that disobey orders, particularly when it's the largest army in human history and a sizeable chunk of its personnel will have had relatives murdered by the troops they're fighting against. 

Nonetheless, the Red Army's victory was on aggregate an enormous force for good. 

However bad the Warsaw Pact was, Generalplan Ost being implemented from Lodz to the Urals and from Murmansk to Astrakhan would have been a thousand times worse. 

It would be nice if history had presented us with another choice, but sadly the real world isn't so ideal. 

Luckily the far better choice won out, and the only counter argument is Nazi apologism. 

 

 

[Dalmore]

it's obvious that Stalin killed a lot more people and that's why he won the the war. wait what thread am I posting in?

[nudge+]

31 minutes ago, Inverted said:

History doesn't deal in pretty solutions to catastrophic problems. 

The Stalinist USSR was a brutal regime, and the Red Army committed atrocities. But any large military force will have elements that disobey orders, particularly when it's the largest army in human history and a sizeable chunk of its personnel will have had relatives murdered by the troops they're fighting against. 

Nonetheless, the Red Army's victory was on aggregate an enormous force for good. 

However bad the Warsaw Pact was, Generalplan Ost being implemented from Lodz to the Urals and from Murmansk to Astrakhan would have been a thousand times worse. 

It would be nice if history had presented us with another choice, but sadly the real world isn't so ideal. 

Luckily the far better choice won out, and the only counter argument is Nazi apologism. 

Tell that to millions of civilians of multiple nations who were incarcerated, mass deported and died in the gulags in the farthest uninhabited areas of Siberia long after the war and the subsequent attempts to push Sovietization policies and eradicate entire nations by this "enormous force of good". Roughly every 10th inhabitant of my homeland has been "relocated" and most never returned and the whole remaining population was subjected to over 40 years of brutal policies directed at completely destroying the language, history, traditions and culture with ongoing consequences that are still noticeable today. I personally never got to know a big part of my family as a result of that and about 50 years after it started I was 6 and I was standing there with hundreds of thousands unarmed civilians protecting the national TV and radio station and watched people being shot and crushed by Soviet tanks on that cold January night; all because after all those years of occupation we finally dared to peacefully restore our independence and broadcast it to the world.

The crimes of one ideology doesn't justify the crimes of the other one and there's definitely no contest to be had there. To dismiss criticism and condemnation of Soviet actions as "Nazi apologism" is very easy though when you or those close to you never encountered it and can't even fathom the scale at which it was happening because you only read some numbers in some book. Millions of people might have also died or suffered similar fate if Generalplan Ost ever came to be but it remains a "what if" scenario and speculation whereas the Soviet actions had real consequences for millions. To claim that somehow it was a "better choice" is fucking insulting. 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

Forgot Nudge was Lithuanian. That's really horrific.

@Inverted

As recently as the fucking 90's people were risking being shot, and having their families murdered to escape the Soviet union. A nation that was such a 'force of good' it literally had to erect a fucking wall to keep its citizens in.

 

The 90s. The fucking 90s.

In the same decade as Nirvana came and went, the same decade as Britney Spears and slipknot released their first albums, the same decade I assume you were fucking born in and the dame decade friends came on air, the fucking soviets were still murdering their own citizens to forcibly keep them in their shithole supernation no one wanted or wanted to be in. How do you forget that? And how do you fucking dare accuse someone of discussing a 50 year forced reign of subversion, censorship and terror as a fucking Nazi apologist? You are a fucking weapon of the highest order if you don't apologise to Nudge.

 

1 hour ago, Dalmore said:

it's obvious that Stalin killed a lot more people and that's why he won the the war. wait what thread am I posting in?

We weren't talking about combat against armies of other nations. We were discussing the murder of non combatants , ethnic cleansing, the relocation and destruction of entire native populations ect. 

[Inverted]

2 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Forgot Nudge was Lithuanian. That's really horrific.

@Inverted

As recently as the fucking 90's people were risking being shot, and having their families murdered to escape the Soviet union. A nation that was such a 'force of good' it literally had to erect a fucking wall to keep its citizens in.

 

The 90s. The fucking 90s.

In the same decade as Nirvana came and went, the same decade as Britney Spears and slipknot released their first albums, the same decade I assume you were fucking born in and the dame decade friends came on air, the fucking soviets were still murdering their own citizens to forcibly keep them in their shithole supernation no one wanted or wanted to be in. How do you forget that? And how do you fucking dare accuse someone of discussing a 50 year forced reign of subversion, censorship and terror as a fucking Nazi apologist? You are a fucking weapon of the highest order if you don't apologise to Nudge.

 

We weren't talking about combat against armies of other nations. We were discussing the murder of non combatants , ethnic cleansing, the relocation and destruction of entire native populations ect. 

I am not saying that things such as the deportation of the Tartars or Lithuanians was not an enormous crime.

Im saying that the alternative was several orders of magnitude worse. 

If Germany wins the war, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia and others cease to exist as nations by 1960. They're starved, exterminated, and deported to near or total extinction, with the remnants existing as slave labour until they are eventually subsumed and Germanized. 

If the Soviet Union wins, Eastern Europe suffers from civil repression and sporadic deportations up until it collapses.

The Soviet system was survivable and could eventually be brought down with resistance. 

The Nazi one was not. Opposing nations weren't kept repressed - they were wiped off the map. By the time a victorious Nazi regime collapsed, there would be no Poland, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or most other nations of Eastern Europe.

It's not about denying crimes. It's about looking at one of darkest moments of decision in history and thinking which is the less bad option. I don't see how anyone can argue that it isn't good that the Soviet Union won the war when faced with that choice. 

Like if you don't think it's good that the Soviet Union won, literally the only alternative is that one thinks it would have been better that Nazism succeeded. We can't express a preference for some magical result that was never on the table. 

Edit: and I have nothing to apologise for because nudge never said it would be better if Nazi Germany won the war. I sincerely hope he doesn't think that, and knowing him I highly doubt that he does.

[nudge+]

2 hours ago, Inverted said:

I am not saying that things such as the deportation of the Tartars or Lithuanians was not an enormous crime.

Im saying that the alternative was several orders of magnitude worse. 

If Germany wins the war, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Russia and others cease to exist as nations by 1960. They're starved, exterminated, and deported to near or total extinction, with the remnants existing as slave labour until they are eventually subsumed and Germanized. 

If the Soviet Union wins, Eastern Europe suffers from civil repression and sporadic deportations up until it collapses.

The Soviet system was survivable and could eventually be brought down with resistance. 

The Nazi one was not. Opposing nations weren't kept repressed - they were wiped off the map. By the time a victorious Nazi regime collapsed, there would be no Poland, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or most other nations of Eastern Europe.

It's not about denying crimes. It's about looking at one of darkest moments of decision in history and thinking which is the less bad option. I don't see how anyone can argue that it isn't good that the Soviet Union won the war when faced with that choice. 

Like if you don't think it's good that the Soviet Union won, literally the only alternative is that one thinks it would have been better that Nazism succeeded. We can't express a preference for some magical result that was never on the table. 

You really are fucking unbelievable.

Only "civil repression and sporadic deportations"? "Survivable system"? The Soviets under Stalin systematically deported entire nationalities - millions of people - to remote areas where non-habitable conditions inevitably led to mass deaths for almost 30 years, add to that NKVD executions, incarcerations and forced labour camps, and millions that were starved in famines; total death toll goes up to 20 million depending on the source of estimations. The surviving rest was supposed to be forcibly assimilated and subjected to complete Russification over a course of time; much of that started before the war and it would have continued further if the bastard hadn't died in the early 50s. What would have the magnitude been if he hadn't died or if his successors had continued his policies? How long would the Baltic States and Eastern European nations survived in that case? I know, it's a speculation as no one can tell what alternative history would have been for sure, but that's basically what your whole argument is based on so maybe you would like to contemplate that as well before you call a bunch of brutes "enormous force for good" because they won against another bunch of brutes.

Also you're extremely naive if you still believe that any decision was made by anyone "for the greater good" in the first place. There are no morals in geopolitics. Like in all wars, all decisions are made based on what serves one's own interests best, and none of the superpowers care about any smaller nations unless they can use them for their own gains. You know what could have been a better alternative that actually was on the table? The allies winning and then respecting the right of a people to self-determination just like they promised to when they put it in the Atlantic Charter instead of sacrificing the whole Eastern Europe to the Soviets because they wanted to appease them and saw all those nations as "irrelevant" and had little to no interest in their cause, applying the Charter selectively to serve their interests and drawing new problematic national borders.

[Inverted]

42 minutes ago, nudge said:

You really are fucking unbelievable.

Only "civil repression and sporadic deportations"? "Survivable system"? The Soviets under Stalin systematically deported entire nationalities - millions of people - to remote areas where non-habitable conditions inevitably led to mass deaths for almost 30 years, add to that NKVD executions, incarcerations and forced labour camps, and millions that were starved in famines; total death toll goes up to 20 million depending on the source of estimations. The surviving rest was supposed to be forcibly assimilated and subjected to complete Russification over a course of time; much of that started before the war and it would have continued further if the bastard hadn't died in the early 50s. What would have the magnitude been if he hadn't died or if his successors had continued his policies? How long would the Baltic States and Eastern European nations survived in that case? I know, it's a speculation as no one can tell what alternative history would have been for sure, but that's basically what your whole argument is based on so maybe you would like to contemplate that as well before you call a bunch of brutes "enormous force for good" because they won against another bunch of brutes.

Also you're extremely naive if you still believe that any decision was made by anyone "for the greater good" in the first place. There are no morals in geopolitics. Like in all wars, all decisions are made based on what serves one's own interests best, and none of the superpowers care about any smaller nations unless they can use them for their own gains. You know what could have been a better alternative that actually was on the table? The allies winning and then respecting the right of a people to self-determination just like they promised to when they put it in the Atlantic Charter instead of sacrificing the whole Eastern Europe to the Soviets because they wanted to appease them and saw all those nations as "irrelevant" and had little to no interest in their cause, applying the Charter selectively to serve their interests and drawing new problematic national borders.

How can you say there are no morals in geopolitics and then say the Allies should not have allowed the Soviet Union to pursue the policies it did? They didn't "allow" it - they were powerless to stop it. They were hardly happy about it.

The balance of power in Europe favoured the Soviets heavily in 1945 and after the role the Soviets had played, the Allies had very little power to deal with Stalin. They could ask that the Soviets stage elections but when the Soviets made sure the local pro-Soviet parties all won, what were they meant to do? Start WW3 and give Stalin an excuse to grab the rest of Europe? The best the Allies could do was get as far East as possible before the war ended, which they did. 

I don't want to speculate about how the Soviet Union could have been worse or better. All I'm saying is that with the Nazis, it's obvious. Their intentions were clear, and it was an ideology bigger than Hitler or Himmler. No matter what, their intention was to clear Eastern Europe of other nations. And they made a decent effort at in the few years they had. 

If the Soviets had lost, we can say for sure - or at least as sure as possible - we wouldn't be talking about Poland or the Baltic countries etc. anymore. It wouldn't have taken them more than a couple of decades. And in fact the war if anything got in their way of the settlement progress. 

Despite all the horrors the Soviets imposed on Eastern Europe, them winning means that was avoided, and ultimately despite all they went through, those countries still exist today. It doesn't make what happened any better, but all I'm saying is that I'm glad the USSR and not the Nazis won and that something many times worse was avoided.

 

[Cicero]

[nudge+]

3 minutes ago, Inverted said:

How can you say there are no morals in geopolitics and then say the Allies should not have allowed the Soviet Union to pursue the policies it did? They didn't "allow" it - they were powerless to stop it. They were hardly happy about it.

The balance of power in Europe favoured the Soviets heavily in 1945 and after the role the Soviets had played, the Allies had very little power to deal with Stalin. They could ask that the Soviets stage elections but when the Soviets made sure the local pro-Soviet parties all won, what were they meant to do? Start WW3 and give Stalin an excuse to grab the rest of Europe? The best the Allies could do was get as far East as possible before the war ended, which they did. 

I don't want to speculate about how the Soviet Union could have been worse or better. All I'm saying is that with the Nazis, it's obvious. Their intentions were clear, and it was an ideology bigger than Hitler or Himmler. No matter what, their intention was to clear Eastern Europe of other nations. And they made a decent effort at in the few years they had. 

If the Soviets had lost, we can say for sure - or at least as sure as possible - we wouldn't be talking about Poland or the Baltic countries etc. anymore. It wouldn't have taken them more than a couple of decades. And in fact the war if anything got in their way of the settlement progress. 

Despite all the horrors the Soviets imposed on Eastern Europe, them winning means that was avoided, and ultimately despite all they went through, those countries still exist today. It doesn't make what happened any better, but all I'm saying is that I'm glad the USSR and not the Nazis won and that something many times worse was avoided.

I only gave you a better potential alternative as you said there was none. The fact that it didn't happen fits perfectly with "no morals in geopolitics" concept. 

Powerless to stop it?... Give me a break. The British urged the sacrifice of the Baltic States as early as 1942 already and Churchill was the one who proposed the percentages agreement in 1944 and pushed for a weaker interpretation of the Charter in favour of the Soviets (and of course himself) in the postwar partition. 

You don't want to speculate about the Soviets but it's perfectly fine when it comes to Nazis? How convenient. Soviet intentions were as clear as those of the Nazis; the West also knew about their pre-war crimes such as Holodomor yet didn't care about it - in fact some were even actively denying it. 

[The Artful Dodger]

8 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

It's not that 'the soviets were worse' Stalin was just directly responsible for more deaths (mostly his own as well). This is a historical fact. So if you wanna measure in corpses I guess then by all means, go ahead.

 

But I'm sure an air headed socialist like you will put all those poor dead unionists down to 'evil cold war capitalist propaganda'. 

If you subscribe to famine being murder then the British Empire is well up there (I do as it is, what Stalin did to the Ukraine was purposeful. Just as Britain did to Ireland). Your whole country is based on genocide, is this why you feel the need to be so edgy by quasi-supporting other genocidal regime? Makes you feel less alone?

[The Artful Dodger]

16 minutes ago, nudge said:

I only gave you a better potential alternative as you said there was none. The fact that it didn't happen fits perfectly with "no morals in geopolitics" concept. 

Powerless to stop it?... Give me a break. The British urged the sacrifice of the Baltic States as early as 1942 already and Churchill was the one who proposed the percentages agreement in 1944 and pushed for a weaker interpretation of the Charter in favour of the Soviets (and of course himself) in the postwar partition. 

You don't want to speculate about the Soviets but it's perfectly fine when it comes to Nazis? How convenient. Soviet intentions were as clear as those of the Nazis; the West also knew about their pre-war crimes such as Holodomor yet didn't care about it - in fact some were even actively denying it. 

The USSR was an awful murderous regime that destroyed the democracy that was brought about by a genuine people's revolution and ended up murdering millions and imprisoning millions more, it was a slave state and nothing more.

However, there was literally no comparison to the Death Camps of Nazi Germany, there never has been, that is not to defend or apologise for anything else, it's stand alone fact. It's a common tactic of some of the far right to try and whatbouttery when it comes to Nazi Germany, there is nothing, nothing that comes close to what they implemented.

This forum has form for allowing weird Germans to talk about their racist fantasies. Let's not let it happen again with denial of historical facts.

[Cicero]

The most derailed topic thread ever and poor Teso didnt start it 

[Inverted]

50 minutes ago, nudge said:

I only gave you a better potential alternative as you said there was none. The fact that it didn't happen fits perfectly with "no morals in geopolitics" concept. 

Powerless to stop it?... Give me a break. The British urged the sacrifice of the Baltic States as early as 1942 already and Churchill was the one who proposed the percentages agreement in 1944 and pushed for a weaker interpretation of the Charter in favour of the Soviets (and of course himself) in the postwar partition. 

You don't want to speculate about the Soviets but it's perfectly fine when it comes to Nazis? How convenient. Soviet intentions were as clear as those of the Nazis; the West also knew about their pre-war crimes such as Holodomor yet didn't care about it - in fact some were even actively denying it. 

The difference is that there are literally documents in which the Nazis set out their plan to destroy the races of Eastern Europe - they had calculated the percentage that would need to starve within certain timeframes to clear the east for German settlement. 

Hitler had wrote about it since the 1920s. They declared war on Poland and the USSR for that purpose. We saw that they tried to wipe major population centres like Leningrad off the map. 

To pretend that the Nazis would suddenly not have followed through if they had finally won and been on the brink of achieving their utopia is ridiculous. 

It's not speculation to say what the Nazis would have done had they won - because they told us, and we can easily extrapolate from the few years in which they had a chance to act.

Frankly, it's extremely disappointing that a poster of your calibre would deny or play-down these core, well documented elements of Nazism's vision of Europe. 

[nudge+]

8 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

The USSR was an awful murderous regime that destroyed the democracy that was brought about by a genuine people's revolution and ended up murdering millions and imprisoning millions more, it was a slave state and nothing more.

However, there was literally no comparison to the Death Camps of Nazi Germany, there never has been, that is not to defend or apologise for anything else, it's stand alone fact. It's a common tactic of some of the far right to try and whatbouttery when it comes to Nazi Germany, there is nothing, nothing that comes close to what they implemented.

This forum has form for allowing weird Germans to talk about their racist fantasies. Let's not let it happen again with denial of historical facts.

Brilliant, so I've been indirectly labeled a nazi apologist earlier and am now being accused of "denying historical facts" for disagreeing with a weird claim that the Red Army and their victory were "enormous force for good", talking about the extent of their crimes and questioning whether it was possible to avoid if the Allies actually implemented the principles of self-determination. 

[The Artful Dodger]

7 minutes ago, nudge said:

Brilliant, so I've been indirectly labeled a nazi apologist earlier and am now being accused of "denying historical facts" for disagreeing with a weird claim that the Red Army and their victory were "enormous force for good", talking about the extent of their crimes and questioning whether it was possible to avoid if the Allies actually implemented the principles of self-determination. 

No, I certainly didn't mean to imply that anyway. Just the analagoy between the two doesn't really work. 

I also dislike how the 'allies' are held up as some paradigm of virtue. The British Empire has created as much misery as Nazi Germany or the USSR, only often it was successful in completely eliminating its victims, or reducing them to such paltry numbers they are negligible. You rightly mention Holodomor but how often is the Irish famine mentioned as a crime against humanity? Very rarely. The British did not fight against the Nazis because of Nazism, they actively refused to intervene when they found out about the mass murder going on,preferring to carpet bomb innocent civilians instead. It's just all hypocrisy. 

[nudge+]

2 minutes ago, Inverted said:

The difference is that there are literally documents in which the Nazis set out their plan to destroy the races of Eastern Europe - they had calculated the percentage that would need to starve within certain timeframes to clear the east for German settlement. 

We saw that they tried to wipe major population centres like Leningrad off the map.

It's not speculation to say what the Nazis would have done had they won - because they told us, and we can easily extrapolate from the few years in which they had a chance to act.

Frankly, it's extremely disappointing that a poster of your calibre would deny or play-down these core, well documented elements of Nazism's vision of Europe. 

 seriously I give up. Not once did I deny Nazi intentions or their vision of Europe; nor did I say that the Soviets were worse than Nazis. I said however that the alternative detailed timeline of events that you provided (aka what if the Nazis had won) is a speculation considering there's no way to actually know how the actual events would have panned out and that for those millions of people who died under the Soviet rule the Red Army was definitely not a force for good. Big difference there don't you think?... 

[nudge+]

16 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

No, I certainly didn't mean to imply that anyway. Just the analagoy between the two doesn't really work. 

I also dislike how the 'allies' are held up as some paradigm of virtue. The British Empire has created as much misery as Nazi Germany or the USSR, only often it was successful in completely eliminating its victims, or reducing them to such paltry numbers they are negligible. You rightly mention Holodomor but how often is the Irish famine mentioned as a crime against humanity? Very rarely. 

Don't look at me, I've never seen the allies (or anyone else in politics for that matter) as a paradigm of virtue and this whole argument started with me getting infuriated with Inverted's claim that Red Army's victory was an "enormous force for good" which I honestly still find extremely ignorant and insulting. It's one thing to be glad that the Nazis were defeated; it's a completely different one to celebrate the victory of the other brutal regime as the best possible outcome of the conflict. 

[nudge+]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

The most derailed topic thread ever and poor Teso didnt start it 

Yeah admittedly it got a little bit out of hand 

[Inverted]

1 hour ago, nudge said:

Don't look at me, I've never seen the allies (or anyone else in politics for that matter) as a paradigm of virtue and this whole argument started with me getting infuriated with Inverted's claim that Red Army's victory was an "enormous force for good" which I honestly still find extremely ignorant and insulting. It's one thing to be glad that the Nazis were defeated; it's a completely different one to celebrate the victory of the other brutal regime as the best possible outcome of the conflict. 

Saying something is overall a force for good doesn't mean it did no wrong.

Saying Britain and America were the good guys of the war (which though sounding naive I would say is undoubtedly true) doesn't mean that the Bengal famine, or the atom bombs were sunshine and roses. It just means, overall, they were the best of the bunch.

When I say the Red Army was a force for good, I'm weighing up the good of ending the holocaust and saving the lives of 10s of millions more who certainly would have died had the Nazis defeated the USSR. And I'm subtracting from all that, the crimes committed in the post-war Soviet bloc, which though horrific, are not on the same scale as the crimes the Nazis managed to commit even whilst distracted by the war, never mind what they would have done.

The Allies, including the Soviet Union, were the good guys because they prevented more harm than they themselves committed. I don't believe in ignoring their crimes, but I also don't believe in trying to equivocate them with the Nazis. 

 

[nudge+]

4 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Saying something is overall a force for good doesn't mean it did no wrong.

Saying Britain and America were the good guys of the war (which though sounding naive I would say is undoubtedly true) doesn't mean that the Bengal famine, or the atom bombs were sunshine and roses. It just means, overall, they were the best of the bunch.

When I say the Red Army was a force for good, I'm weighing up the good of ending the holocaust and saving the lives of 10s of millions more who certainly would have died had the Nazis defeated the USSR. And I'm subtracting from all that, the crimes committed in the post-war Soviet bloc, which though horrific, are not on the same scale as the crimes the Nazis managed to commit even whilst distracted by the war, never mind what they would have done.

The Allies, including the Soviet Union, were the good guys because they prevented more harm than they themselves committed. I don't believe in ignoring their crimes, but I also don't believe in trying to equivocate them with the Nazis. 

 

Let's just leave it at that then because for me no entity that commits such atrocities can ever be considered a force for good regardless if the other side happens to be even worse. As much as I'm concerned - screw the Nazis, screw the Soviets, screw the British Empire and screw the US. Small neutral nations such like us are getting fucked either way as we're just used as pawns and seen as collateral damage in geopolitical games of the big players.

[nudge+]

6 hours ago, Inverted said:

Edit: and I have nothing to apologise for because nudge never said it would be better if Nazi Germany won the war. I sincerely hope he doesn't think that, and knowing him I highly doubt that he does.

Haha I never saw this edit... First of all, no offense was taken and there was never any need to apologise anyway. Secondly, it's a she, not a he  

[Devil-Dick Willie]

2 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

If you subscribe to famine being murder then the British Empire is well up there (I do as it is, what Stalin did to the Ukraine was purposeful. Just as Britain did to Ireland). Your whole country is based on genocide, is this why you feel the need to be so edgy by quasi-supporting other genocidal regime? Makes you feel less alone?

 

How is claiming Soviet Russia is evil quasi supporting Nazi Germany? That's a massive fucking leap. My comment was that they were both evil. I also have no idea why I'd feel alone?

[Devil-Dick Willie]

7 hours ago, Inverted said:

 

Edit: and I have nothing to apologise for because nudge never said it would be better if Nazi Germany won the war. I sincerely hope he doesn't think that, and knowing him I highly doubt that he does.

 

You know 'him' so well you don't realise she's a she?

[The Artful Dodger]

14 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

 

How is claiming Soviet Russia is evil quasi supporting Nazi Germany? That's a massive fucking leap. My comment was that they were both evil. I also have no idea why I'd feel alone?

You said the German Army was facing a worse enemy in the Red Army. How else is that supposed be perceived?

[Devil-Dick Willie]

Just now, The Artful Dodger said:

You said the German Army was facing a worse enemy in the Red Army. How else is that supposed be perceived?

Except I didn't say that at all

"Ironic that they're about to fight the Ruskis there. I think if satan himself fought against Stalin's Russia he still wouldn't be the 'baddie'"