I hate to use a meme but

I personally support the nuking of the nips, but you're absolutely right. Their comparison is completely off.

What's with the press constantly crying about cluster and barrel bombs? What makes them so unkosher compared to regular bombs that still blow shit up?

Because people are easily swayed when you talk about things they don't really understand that's meant to get them to think a certain way.

Have a Putin.

You fucking moron, the Russians did that to themselves. Its called scorched earth tactics. What does Germany gain from doing something like that?

The last time we destroyed the Japs so hard they developed a cancer which is now spreading though today's western young men.
Either wipe them out completely or don't agitate the wound.

I've heard some moronic shit but that tops it.

...

I didn't say anything about France and Britain. They received the expected effect. Nice try though.

user pls no, don't make this a thing

France was decimated and Britain came close to being defeated through blockade. Stop overselling your point.

What is moronic is to destroy your own supply line, esp. when you're advancing.

And Russia.

Russia declared preemptive war.

Germany responded with Blitzkrieg.

Into the filter bin you go.

ooh, ooh, filter me too!

Yeah, the Germans totally didn't bomb the shit out of Rotterdam, London,Warsaw and Coventry (to name a few).
Fuck off with that shit, larper.
The Axis pioneered the notion of bombing civilian population centers, the Allies just did it better.

Thank you for Correcting the Record!

Okay.

Thanks!

It's a meme, retard.

yes both countries were almost flattened by the german war machine but managed to pull ahead and win. But lets ignore the thousands of historically significant buildings lost in the london blitz, an attack done exclusively to damage the peoples moral and not for military targets, the Germans are the real victims here!

I can sympathize with the destruction of german society but to act like the germans were the only ones that suffered and dindu nuffin is fucking dumb.

Consider the record corrected, Mr. 4chan man.

Do you ever think that it may be advantageous to make what you say at least remotely true?

Checked. Putting shills in their place is easy, but unfortunately pointless.

Not from here it isn't.
Just because it's a "meme" doesn't make it dank or give it a free pass.
See exhibits 1-4.

...

wait let me guess "muh pooland" right?

France and Britain declared war on Germany because "muh pooland". Russia was two weeks away from attacking Europe before Operation Barbarossa took place.
So which country is it Germany declared war on? Your precious Pooland?

I was just commenting on the facts. When did I apply a moral judgement?

That was during a siege. I almost omitted Rotterdam too.

...

...

So I'm right then.

Britain pioneered the notion of the concentration camp, Germany just did it better :^)

you do realize calling it "pooland" doesn't change anything right? The Germans still used a totally bullshit excuse to invade and destroy the country, which took decades for them to fully recover not to mention the invasion weakened them so much that they were overrun by the Russians. Then they had to spend 50 years under communist occupation.

and the best justification you can come up with is saying "muh pooland".

Meme arrow it all you want to, but the fact remains the Germans destroyed a thousand years of European history and you're complaining because the limeys torched a town most famous for producing frilly porcelain tea sets.

Yet when America indiscrimintly threw bunker busters on Iraq palaces and military installations inside civilian neigborhoods in Iraq - not a sinle peep from UN. When America killed 100.000 civilians a year with for the first 2 war years - not a peep. When the war was over, not a single critical debate or emergency meeting. It's like i'm seeing a twofaced organisation try so badly to protect their little funded jihadi's. Ask your taxpayers if they want to pay for your subversion.

...

I keep hearing this meme, no source has been provided yet.

Nice shilling Chaim!

not an argument

They brought it upon themselves, they attacked the US first.

Sure they did, it's not like the atrocities Poland committed against minorities between the wars are proven historical facts.

Yeah but "x I don't like is literally Hitler" is dank as fugg.

shh no tears… only dreams now

It's worth noting that there was an ultimatum to Rotterdam before the Rotterdam Blitz. I cannot find any similar ultimatum regarding Warsaw. The Germans probably did not consider international law as applying to the eastern front.

I suppose the most plain justification is
it was German afterall

You're a slippery fucker. You'd feel more honest if you actually accepted or refuted my rebuttal.

If we're to discuss this angle I think we need to get into the nature of the Reich and if it's worth it to inflict some transient cultural harm in order to save your race long term. In hindsight, do you consider us as better off having stopped them? Do you think that they did more or less harm than we have done on our own to our culture and race? Answer this bearing in mind the escalation of the situation from the 50s-present.

Obviously Germany could have prevented events from transpiring on their own. I don't think, though, that there is an option not to fight. To not fight is to surrender to decay, to demographics; not fighting means certain death, and fighting means uncertain death. It was clear to Hitler that internal colonization would not allow Germany to keep up with the Soviet Union in terms of manpower/defense.

All I've heard is that they allegedly had maps of the German interior on their front line troops.

and then America perfected it.

...

It's a historical fact.

solonin.org/en/book_june22

uhh more like something closer to two years. Hitler chose to attack when he did because the Soviet's industrial capacity to build war machines was soon to quickly outstrip Germany's own capacity, who, being an already industrialized nation was already near "peak industrial capacity" in comparison to the largely agrarian (and commiefucked) Russia.

Same situation was the case in 1914, where German generals believed that Russia would outstrip German military strength and nullify Germany's tech/training advantage in sheer weight of numbers; it was expected that in less than 5 years Germany would not be capable of beating Russia in a 1v1 war.

...

Why do you call Soviet Union Russia anyway? It's not the same thing…

Thanks for your input, but I'll need something better than a blog if I want any chance of redpilling normies about it.

Reminder that WW2 could've been prevented if Poland just let Germany build _a fucking highway_

And Danzig was like 4% Polish in 1918 and was becoming Polonized (iirc ~15% Polish in 1939) only due to the lopsided demands of Versailles resulting in a "free city" that really amounted to a temporary buffer zone to be integrated into Poland after the demographics had been shifted sufficiently.

that was not the point of the comparison with putin, and of that post.

Isn't that guy a Jew? Why does he keep getting posted here?

Ok here is a question:
Why the fuck does the UN get to decide which bombs are ok and which aren't ?

When you carpet bomb civilian areas, that is more humane than barrel bombing em or using cluster bombs ?

Since when can the UN veto certain types of bombs ?

...

The OP used that phrase ironically.

Jonathan Aryan Jafari is of Hungarian and Iranian descent so h'white as fuck :^))

Stalin at least purged jews.

>I'm only eating shit ironically

But that text… Almost all of it is about Jews and it's full of whining that Poland was nationalist?

Yeah, there's something about others, but all about non-Jews is about Ukrainians and Germans being given "injustice".

What injustice? By the government? The people? Some random drunkard? All of the tree? No specifics anywhere, just general stuff that seems to attempt convincing Poland into paying Jews reparations because "you wuz bad goys against us".

What does the writer consider "injustice"? Is any minor "happening" against someone of non-native origin injustice? What conduct problems? Not allowing to vote, not permitting to communicate with "PROGRESSIVE''' USSR, or giving their native country vital data concerning the country, effectively serving as spies?

Does injustice mean if some random drunkard (they exist in every country) assaulted an Ukrainian, German, Jew,, then Poland as a whole was injust? The text sounds like a way to enforce and demand reparations for the Jews, if he had specific data with proof that holds water he would've given it because that'd increase the shekelsucking. It's just general "you were bad" with no proof, no substance and words used that have such broad meaning, it's impossible to decode what actually was happening.

I think it's just a joke, but where did you get that text from anyway, some Chaim who wanted Poland to pay him reparations?

The only thing changed is that Russia now controls less nations and has a different ideology. But the core of Russia never changed.

That's what you get when you trust the Anglo and try to act all though by mobilizing your troops for no reason.

Not really, he only fugged with the Bolsheviks because they challanged his power, all of those bureaucrats and comissars were still kiked as fuck.

Samefag detected. Shills seem to pick up on words like "LARPer" and "goon" but never really understand how we use them so they end up using them redundantly and out of place.

It makes you faggots stick out like a sore thumb.

Because he's funny.

Everyone knows (((international organizations))) are impartial and are there for the benefit of all humankind! :^)

>but at least

Yeah, well, that's where irony gets you.

because unlike barrel bombs with poor accuracy, guided missiles ONLY kill 14 civilians for every terrorist

He purged them because they disagreed with Stalin, not because they were jews. By all accounts Stalin was a Judeophile.

Only when they drown in a puddle of their own blood.

Mark Solonin is an actual russian historian, that is his blog, but there are more that wrote entire books on this topic. Not flimsy newspaper articles, books.

this link is naturally not for normies:
codoh.com/library/document/2724/
codoh.com/library/document/2278/

these might be:
usni.org/store/books/ebook-editions/chief-culprit
wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_michaels.html
counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

And guess what, books like 23 июня: "День М", which are russian research on this topic never got translated into english.

The books will definitely help, thanks.

Go fuck yourselves

God damn right weeboos btfo

Actually the Spanish are the all time leaders in concentration camp technology.

Mel Brooks movies were funny though

...

They brought it upon themselves, they waged economic war on Japan first.

...

...

There is no such thing as a war crime.

Cuckolding is a war crime.

I tend to agree. I have long considered "morals" as a Jewish construction. Instead of endlessly debating how to be a good goy and who is or isn't a good goy, we should be thinking about fact, cause-effect, and what is practical. I think that we should think of things in terms of their alignment with the natural laws and how they service our interests - nothing should be off the table.

That's precisely how Jews think.

You’re a fucking faggot. Only jews believe in moral relativism.

Truth is objective, which means good is objective, which means morality is objective.

Should we succeed, that's something our kids can worry about.
We can't stick to morals when our enemies have none; ya can't win.

Why should we afford them that advantage in this great struggle?

Truth is objective with caveats. You might say "I have had my testicles removed" but I couldn't say the same of myself. It may be in the interests of a horse to rid itself of parasitic ticks, but it is not in the interest of the ticks. There is no universal morality per se .

The closest we could get to an objective morality is to consider the ultimate moral arbiter as nature itself. The wolf does not hesitate to eat the rabbit, nor does the rabbit hesitate to deny the wolf a meal. It is perfectly moral (natural) for each to play the game conceived by evolution. In the same vein we cannot say that what the Jews do is immoral, as they are just enacting the conspiracy concocted within their DNA - but nor can we call their removal immoral, as we are doing the same. What would be immoral is for us to stand back and let them do it.

Remember that Christian Universalism welcomes aliens with open arms.

He actually didn't, he started to plan it out after the war then suffered an untimely death

war crimes are just what the winners claim the losers did
For example, if the US got "liberated" by Canada or Mexico somehow, they'd certainly call our prisons concentration camps and claim we were committing war crimes against blacks and arabs

Only savages and half breeds would think such a thing

good goyim, have a few shekels

He used to be funny, he's a total fucking sellout these days though.

Yea, I was making fun of the post here:

Do not mix up objective and universal morality.

If one were to ask: "Is it moral for one to slit their own throat?"
A universalist answer could be some rotten pith such as: "Well, a mother has spent nine months producing the fucker, so it would be a waste - ∴ no." - the same could be said for a wolf killing a rabbit.

An Objectivist answer might be: "Yes and no. Usually it would be in the genetic interest of the individual to not off themselves, but there are situations where it would be in their interests. One might find themselves as a PoW - of course, if one doesn't trust oneself to not leak information, it may be genetically advantageous, advantageous to the race, to cyanide oneself." - This does not apply to a wolf eating a rabbit (though I suppose the root of the argument, nature, does.).

So maybe we should draw a keen distinction between Objectivism and Universalism. Though perhaps we should also consider the differences between collectivist Objectivism (Hitler) and individualist Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Economic war? Japan could have handled themselves. They did for the most their reign up until the 1850s.

It's a smart political move to a narrative that supports Russian nationalism. Don't be this dense.

putin kills slavic nationalists regardless he is a cunt and no friend to the right

YOU'RE HITLER, HE'S HITLER, I'M HITLER! ARE THERE ANY OTHER HITLERS I SHOULD KNOW ABOUT?!

I'M HITLER

let me ruin that for you. A movie written by a commie, directed by a jew, starring a jew, celebrating a hero of marxism and Marx himself. Commie groups and events were named after spartacus.
I still kinda like the movie

the fucking point of a BB is to hit and take out a precise target with as little collateral as possible. why keep shelling the top of a bunker for hours when you can easily make it explode from within using only one bomb

why are liberals such fucking retards?

And they still all got crucified.

As I'm becoming to learn about the Left, and let me emphasize:

Everything the Left says about the other is projection.

For some reason, they think countering their hypocricy constitutes 'NO U' and thus per definition is rendered an unvalid defense/pivot/criticism.

Another case of them falling for their own propaganda.

because were it not for the Germans, the polish fucking horse cavalry would have fared so much better against soviet tanks

JIDF tactics. Just lie lie lie. By the time anyone catches on they've planted 5 more lies.

Makes them martyrs.

It's a simple but important thing to remember. It's especially obvious when a leftist accuses you of something random.

...

Jozef Beck believed they would fight the war in Germany and the polish cavalry would crush the Wehrmacht. He honestly believed the Wehrmacht would be less strong by far than Germany's previous army, the Reichswehr.

...