Comments on: New Ranzar video

By: USA Association brig hart

USA Association brig hart — Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:40:05 +0000

Howdy, simply changed into alert to your site via Bing, determined that it’s actually insightful. I am going to be cautious with regard to belgium’s capital. I’ll appreciate in the event you keep on this kind of later on. Other people today will be reaped the benefit from the publishing. Kind regards!

By: Adam Meizner

Adam Meizner — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:43:36 +0000

Canicatti, Dachau, Biscari massacre anyone? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Japenese prisoner to death ratio 1:100 in ’44? These are totally conforming to the “rules of war”, right?

I’m sorry, the world is not about good and bad, black and white. And it goes for every/any country involved in a war.

By: Adam Meizner

Adam Meizner — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:15:51 +0000

If you have this attitude IRL, you should be executed… just sayin’. Or to make an ad hominem: not sure if 16 with a zitty face, or a 60 year old with erection problems.

To get back to the topic: yes, it’s totally comparable, I guess you never heard about the vote in the U.S. after Japan capitulated regarding “What to do with Japan now?”, where a sizeable portion of the population voted for “let’s just kill them all”? So if the people in a country are bloodthirsty racists, but the president luckily isn’t, then all is well?

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:56:36 +0000

You’re speaking of land which what later became a part of unified Germany seized by force from the crumbling Polish realm *centuries* ago, which renders your apologist argument nonsensical from its own dubious premises.

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:53:28 +0000

I am well aware of the peculiar psychology and pressures of armed forces, thank you. I am also aware of the little detail you elected to entirely overlook in your little obfuscatory word-game that there’s something called “rules of war” in place to try to restrain the barbarism of warfare, which militaries with a shred of moral fibre also follow and enforce to the best of their ability.
As it happens the Germans quite explicitly and deliberately followed none of such in the East, and for that matter had already on several occasions breached in the West by summarily massacring surrendered French colonial soldiers.

I cannot but note that you also seem to quite insistently try to steer the discussion away from the German war goals in the East, which were quite simply morally bankrupt in the extreme and would have made Genghis Khan blink in disbelief – namely the eventual extirpation of a few hundred million “subhumans” west of the Urals. Between that and the policy of systematic murder of POWs it makes fuck-all difference how some individual trooper may have felt of such policies; in practical terms the further east the panzers went the more helpless civilians and prisoners were exposed to oppression far beyond the pale.
Soviet propaganda had a very easy time convincing the average “frontovik” that he was fighting for the survival of not only himself and everyone and everything he held dear but his entire *nation*, not to mention to avenge unspeakable offenses against them all, for the very good reason it was basically *true*. (The vengeance bit got hastily de-emphasised after East Prussia for a number of practical reasons…)

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:38:44 +0000

Right, because limited civil rights and individual people being prejudiced jackasses are *totally* comparable to an official ideology and policy of physical extermination of “undesirables”, and well-run internement camps are clearly in the same league as the fucking Auschwitz-Birkenau and a policy of systematically starving POWs to death en masse.
*eyeroll*
Not sure if Nazi or fucking retarded.

By: veri

veri — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 21:21:52 +0000

you’re being remarkably ignorant, if not racist.

UK and France declared war on Germany when Germany tried to retake the lands they lost in 1918.

In 1939, to the rest of the world that was a perfectly legit war. Today it’s not and today we know more than we did in 1939.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 16:03:50 +0000

ебанные дети это просто мультик

By: Adam Meizner

Adam Meizner — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:25:56 +0000

Let’s not forget that Americans are/were well-known for their racism: against black people (to this day), against Japanese and Germans during WW2 and for a few decads afterwards, and against all arabian people nowadays. Racist behaviour is basically “subhumanizing” other nations.

By: Adam Meizner

Adam Meizner — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:09:58 +0000

I take it you never had to serve in any military unit (which is totally fine), hence your question about the morality of a soldier. In wartime, no country needs soldiers who constantly fall into moral dilemmas: there’s simply no time for such a thing: it’s a luxury. Soldiers are not used for ethical and moral thinking, they are in service to follow orders and accomplish their tasks with maximum efficiency. Of course this is not a zombie state, and this is why the option to object to an order is always there; however, you can only complain afterwards. There are numerous examples in modern wars where soldiers hesitated to kill a woman or a child, and they got a bullet in their backs because of that decision. War is everything but fair and ethical. It’s also a necessity, whether people like it or not.

All of the countries involved in the Second World War committed heinous crimes, but as always, the winners write history. To this day there are horribad politicians leading countries, and people aren’t doing crap about it. So the “all Germans in WW2 were genocidal warmongers” is just as correct as the “all Rusians were vodka-inhaling rapists” and the “all Americans were dumb, racist hillbillies” generalizations.