quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Heisenberg: You don't get to swear at other posters here, and you are abusing the tolerance this board shows for profanity in general. Please edit at least the swearing at others.
Nah. I meant every single solitary word of what I wrote, and I won't be editing *crap*. You're the moderator, and you can do as you wish.
I guess I'll try to consider your request about language. But for the mouth breathrs who don't get it out tbere, and also Orson Scott Card, if I use the words freak or crap, you will still know the directed contempt behind the words.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This makes me feel a little better now about Trump being our 45th president.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB] Apparently no one has bothered to check the link I gave to an article that shows some good things about the kind of person Donald Trump is, that directly contradicts the image liberals are and have been trying to paint of him.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The Canadian process is actually pretty complicated. First, everyone who wants to run the country is required to punch a moose. Then they have to apologize to the moose as sincerely and rapidly as possible. The winner is the first one who manages to get the moose to apologize to them.
No this is mostly right but doesn't actually paint the whole picture, you have to remember that that is only the preliminary prequalifying round, there is still Eskimo bob sledding (where we ride an Eskimo named bob down a hill) and the worst are eliminated by a simple majority decision reached via consensus by the penguin, polar bear, and beaver councils.
There is also the dam building competition where we compete to determine the most convincing lesbian costume and also the maple syrup cooking contest while singing 'O Canada'.
Last time was contentious because Stephen Harper accused Justin Trudeau of fowl play by having an American chicken take the place of a Canadian one.
But of course I haven't paid much attention since the above is completely ordinary and boring in comparison to a Trump Presidency.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How does your country elect it's PM? Or is it President too?
In Poland we have both PM and the President, it's called dual executive power, which is supposed to prevent a situation when one person holds too much power. I personally believe it's totally stupid, as it generally makes president a "guardian of the chandelier" as some people call it, with little real power but still, according to the constitution, he is responsible for foreign affairs and is the official Chief Commander of Armed Forces.
Polish presidential elections take place every five years, while parliamentary elections take place every 4 years, unless the parliament self-disbands earlier. 2015 was groundbreaking, because both were held. After two terms the Center-right Civic Platform party and it's coalitiant (Polish People's Party, an agrarian christian party that always has around 10-15 seats making them a "hooker" than enters a coalition with any winning party who lacks few seats, the oldest continuous party in Poland) lost, and very unexpectedly Civic Platform's candidate, Komorowski, lost as well. Almost full power is now in the hands of one man, Kaczynski (whose twin brother, former president, died in the 2010 plane crash in Smolensk, Russia, along with 95 other government officials and crew).
Our presidential elections are so called 4-adjective (equal, direct, popular, secret), in the 1st ballot you vote for a candidate that gathered at least 100 000 signatures from Polish citizens (population 38 mln, so it's fairly easy). Usually we have around 8-10 candidates, but only 2 really count. If after first ballot there is no candidate who gained at least 50% + 1 vote, the second ballot is held (usually after two weeks) where two candidates with most votes compete. I'd have to check, but I think only once we had a president elected after only one ballot.
President doesn't hold too much power, he is mostly a representative of the state, pretty much like in Germany. However, he has the right to veto any bill passed by the parliament. Parliament then requires a higher majority to pass it again.
Parliamentary elections are 5-adjective (equal, direct, popular, secret, and proportional). It's super complex, but you may have heard of the d'Hondt Method - the highest averages method. Basically, it favors bigger parties. Wikipedia provides a good example. Poland decided to use this method due to historical reasons - in 1920's our parliament changed every 6 months or so, as there were countless parties with seats in the parliament, making it impossible to form a stable majority. Now the ruling party hardly ever has a "ruling majority" 50%+1 vote and require a coaltion. However, Law and Justice now holds almost total power. The only thing they don't have is Constitutional majority, which would allow them to change the constitution (2/3 of votes).
The parliament is, obviously, a legislative power, but it chooses the executive. Most often the leader of the winning party forms a cabinet, and the parliament (the majority is under control of the leader himself) passes (or not) the vote of confidence. Basically our powers are not seperated as they should be, since the leader of the winning party is a PM and) a leader of the parliamentary majority at the same time. It makes the goverment more efficient (but leads to things that we have right now).
posted
Elison, your presumption is showing. My motive was only to bring to the attention of others some reports that contradict the untruthful way Trump has been characterized by liberal partisans.
I still view Trump with suspicion, knowing he has been a lifelong liberal Democrat, and am waiting to see how many of his campaign promises he keeps, and especially whom he chooses to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. My point is that contrary to the persistent propaganda of the Left, Trump does not appear to be a racist, and seems to have some generous impulses--at least now and then. I still would prefer that Ted Cruz had been elected.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Szymon, your Polish system sounds pretty complicated.
It is good that like us, your system makes it harder to change the constitution. That is a way to protect a minority from being persecuted by a majority; only a super majority can change the basic rules that limit government. Our system makes it even harder; not only must 2/3 of both houses approve a constitutional amendment, it must be followed by 3/4 of all state legislatures approving the change to the constitution.
[ November 22, 2016, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Szymon, your Polish system sounds pretty complicated.
It is good that like us, your system makes it harder to change the constitution. That is a way to protect a minority from being persecuted by a majority; only a super majority can change the basic rules.
However, the ruling party, which I strongly oppose, has found a way to change the basic rules, unfortunately.
Part of the constitution:
quote: 1. Judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal shall be of universally binding application and shall be final. 2. Judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal regarding matters specified in Article 188, shall be required to be immediately published in the official publication in which the original normative act was promulgated. If a normative act has not been promulgated, then the judgment shall be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland, Monitor Polski.
The last bit is what the whole country is roaring about right now. Namely, the goverment is responsible of the Official Gazette. They simply declined to publish two judgments, which they found "unconstitutional". Forgetting about the 1. "shall be final". Hundreds of thousands protest, but to no avail.
And yes, I envy you your constitution. It should be as hard to change, as possible. 2/3 doesn't sound as much right now, with what's going on in Europe.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Szymon, it sounds like your system does not have three distinct branches of government, like ours does. Our third branch, the Judiciary, advises on whether any given law may be contrary to the constitution. There is debate about whether the executive and legislative branches have to go by what the Supreme Court rules, but usually it's rulings are followed. The problem comes when a majority of Supreme Court justices do not believe in adhering strictly to the constitution, and can be creative in interpreting it. This can lead to changes in general practice that have not been decided by the legislative process. In other words, a court packed with liberals would lead to imposing policies and laws on the country that the people and their representatives have not voted for.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could be worse. You could have your executive be the head of the most powerful wing of the legislature, and your head of state be a useless hereditary figurehead. (Hi UK!)
Royal family is going to get 330 million pounds to fix up their house. Courtesy of the UK taxpayers.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Heisenberg the Royal Family leases a large amount of Crown lands to Parliament which is worth billions of pounds if it were to be administered entirely by a private entity and corresponding family firms/corporations.
The stipend their receive is a relative pittance in comparison to the value of their lands that the government instead runs on their behalf and receives the benefits thereof.
I mean you can try to argue that it shouldn't be their land because of centuries of "Bigger Army Diplomacy" is why its theirs but this applies and is equally true for a lot of long running wealthy families in older European countries that didn't have a Communist revolution or Nazi occupation.
Or like, I dunno, argue the socialist point of view that all property is theft but even I don't really agree with that.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Elison, your presumption is showing. My motive was only to bring to the attention of others some reports that contradict the untruthful way Trump has been characterized by liberal partisans.
Awfully presumptuous of you to address me without ever conceding that yes, Germany was never actually close to winning the war.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that until the early 90's the Royal family didn't even pay income tax, never mind inheritance tax. The royal family owes *us,* not the other way around.
They are more then rich enough to pay for the repairs to Buckingham Palace themselves, but privilege and custom have turned them to footing the bill towards taxpayers.
And this in a time of austerity where social services and benefits are facing cuts across the board.
My entire family are Royalists, but as I said to my parents once if you want your baby boy to grow up a royalist you *probably* shouldn't have raised him the the US.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Szymon, it sounds like your system does not have three distinct branches of government, like ours does. Our third branch, the Judiciary, advises on whether any given law may be contrary to the constitution. There is debate about whether the executive and legislative branches have to go by what the Supreme Court rules, but usually it's rulings are followed. The problem comes when a majority of Supreme Court justices do not believe in adhering strictly to the constitution, and can be creative in interpreting it. This can lead to changes in general practice that have not been decided by the legislative process. In other words, a court packed with liberals would lead to imposing policies and laws on the country that the people and their representatives have not voted for.
I does, actually, at least so far there haven't been many problems. Imageine, it is technically possible, that a ruling of US Supreme Court wouldn't be accepted by the Cabinet. Say, because the Supreme Court judge is suspected of a serious crime, or relationship with a foreign secret service, I dunno, whatever. What would happen?
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You wanna know what the problem is, here? Like, realtalk and with me making an effort to present it?
It is that people have essentially (out of inertia from Ron's literally over a decade of being a completely unfixably obdurate conspiracy theorist who blanket-condemns anyone who he sees as liberal) normalized ron's behavior to the extent that everyone's responses to ron become the only ever focal point of discussion about what people should or shouldn't be doing. Like ron's words are just some non-sapient meteorological event that are not accountable to anything.
That makes things expressly weird though, because just like with bean counter and malanthrop and reshpekobilgewater you cannot honestly expect people to simply not end up super done with treating him like a good faith participant in any contentious discussion, and then move straight to being the clutchers-of-pearl brigade over how people choose to respond to a poster who is strictly incapable of arguing in good faith.
If anyone here is sincerely worried about decorum, the way to make absolutely no progress is to skip past holding ron accountable for his tendency to move straight towards posting hot, aggressive, bigoted garbage all the time, and expect others to remain genteel and never have fun with it. You could remove me and multiple others entirely from the process and it would still happen.
The only action that will receive any dividends is if Ron is told that he cannot post hot, aggressive garbage in the first place. If he posts hot, aggressive garbage, any normative attempt to police the responses to it have already failed. "Don't Feed The Trolls," and all of its subcomponent truisms, hold the world internet record for most useless advice by volume ever.
*as a corollary point, nothing about this involves any sort of argument in favor of normalizing my behavior
I totally missed this, sorry, Sam. You are pretty much right in this.
I am totally behind rejecting hot garbage. What I am not behind is people treating every word out of someone's mouth as hot garbage solely because of who they are.
I would prefer to respond to the idiotic statements.
If Blackblade decides that someone is unworthy of the board, so be it. I hated everything that Lisa stood for and still valued her as a voice from an enemy that could allow me to see how they think.
But if people are allowed to post here, it's different. I would ask that people don't say
"Oh here's Ron everyone laugh, what a dumbass,"
But rather "Oh here's Ron saying dumbass things again, here's why."
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison, I do not need to concede something that is not true, that you never proved, that goes contrary to common sense. When Germany had virtually undisputed dominion of continental Europe, having defeated and taken over Poland and France, and driven out the British army and had the RAF on the ropes, and the USA had not yet entered the war, they most certainly were on the verge of winning WWII. Why do you keep repeating the same foolish claim that they never reached this point, as if simply claiming the same thing over and over again could ever make it true?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it amusing that some people seem to regard me as sort of a definitive factor in this forum, to which I only occasionally contribute. As I told members of the forum I frequent most commonly, AI-Jane, I like to post here in Hatrack every so often because it seems to make the liberals who frequent here so mad. To quote what is becoming one of my favorite sayings, "To make a conservative mad, tell him a lie; to make a liberal mad, tell him the truth." Many of you in Hatrack can't seem to stand it, and react with blind close-mindedness, pretense of intellectual adroitness, and of course the usual insult and derision, and attempt at rewriting history--claiming to have refuted me when you never have. To be called a liar by such habitual liars is actually a compliment. I always strive to be on the side of right and good and truth. It strikes me that only those who champion or embrace dishonesty and outright evil would so pathologically hate someone like me. Such hatred is a positive on my résumé. I do notice that a few individuals are coming to feel a proper angst about this, but when they speak up to chide the worst abusers, they are immediately pounced upon by those who resist conviction. This is certainly nothing new in the world. Some things people just have to see for themselves.
[ November 22, 2016, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's why you're a hack, Ron, and it's also the same reason why I'm willing to be so blunt: only your experts ever, ever, ever matter in any discussion of anything with you. Often (and if you respond at all you'll lie and claim you don't do this) you'll reach past dozens or even scores of other experts-such as in discussions of evolution especially and climate change if memory serves-and find a small handful that resonate with you.
These will then be the only experts worth discussion. Ellison referenced quite a lot of WWII history-even though he was discussing it with a man who actually used a goddamned *board game* by freaking MILTON BRADLEY, those avatars of historians-and you sneered at them. They somehow didn't count because he was quoting them, or something.
But if he had heeded your shifting, dishonest rules for discussion then perhaps he would be another of those poor liberals who didn't realize how they'd been duped. You wouldn't actually refute anything any expert he presented said. It's most likely you would simply say they were lying, liberal liberal lying blah blah.
Germany didn't conquer Poland alone, for starters. In order to get the RAF 'on the ropes', the Luftwaffe was strained to the breaking point itself. It had achieved major successes in Europe, but it was called *World War 2* for a reason. One ally, Italy, was actually worse than no benefit, it was a hindrance. Its other ally was so far away it could offer no significant aid at all other than to distract Germany's enemies-and they dropped many of their commitments in Asia anyway to meet them in Europe. Japan was never going to be able to achieve victory in the Pacific, and supposing a series of miracles and Germany took a few more major cities in the USSR...I supppse the same leaders willing to spend the lives of their people like pennies just surrendered?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I find it amusing that some people seem to regard me as sort of a definitive factor in this forum, to which I only occasionally contribute. As I told members of the forum I frequent most commonly, AI-Jane, I like to post here in Hatrack every so often because it seems to make the liberals who frequent here so mad. To quote what is becoming one of my favorite sayings, "To make a conservative mad, tell him a lie; to make a liberal mad, tell him the truth." Many of you in Hatrack can't seem to stand it, and react with blind close-mindedness, pretense of intellectual adroitness, and of course the usual insult and derision, and attempt at rewriting history--claiming to have refuted me when you never have. To be called a liar by such habitual liars is actually a compliment. I always strive to be on the side of right and good and truth. It strikes me that only those who champion or embrace dishonesty and outright evil would so pathologically hate someone like me. Such hatred is a positive on my résumé.
Well now I know that listening to what liberals actually think has never been a thing you do. But really, when it comes down to it half the time it's anger and half the time it's amused contempt, speaking for the people you are certainly thinking about, these 'embracers of evil'.
Anyway, put that accomplishment on your resume next to your degree in history at the Milton Bradley University, Ronnie. Under or above the line about studying biology at divinity school?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, shall we consider again the actual scientific evidences that PROVE Creation and conclusively DISPROVE any possibility of Evolution? Or is it too much fun for you to simply wallow in juvenile insult and sarcasm?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:shall we consider again the actual scientific evidences that PROVE Creation and conclusively DISPROVE any possibility of Evolution
I know that I would like you to consider them again, Ron, since you've so badly misinterpreted the body of evidence on that topic. But I don't think you will.
-----------
quote:I would prefer to respond to the idiotic statements.
Heisenberg, I mean this sincerely: Ron has nothing else to do with his life, and there just aren't enough hours in the day.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, by all means do that thing again where there's a field of study, this case not just history but hard science. And you will cloak yourself in the authority of experts...all while reaching past the overwhelming consensus in a given field to find one or a handful of experts and pretend to the authority of the entire community.
This is why you're not simply wrong and obnoxious, but are simply a liar in this respect. If you're going to do that monologue you'll claim the authority and respectability of science by cherry picking experts and ignoring the many times more of experts who dispute their claims. It doesn't even matter that you think they're wrong for you to be a liar in this respect: it's the part where you wave them aside as liars, embracers of evil, etc etc.
That's the way it is with you. Your opposition isn't ever simply wrong. They're murderers, or totally corrupt, or brainwashed they can't ever see the truth, or any number of other excesses. Evolution and biology aren't scientific questions to you, which is another reason it's so contemptible for you to try and claim scientific proofs. They're religion.
Well, at least in this respect we don't need to fear a Trump presidency: it won't reverse the trends on church attendance or belief in creationism, because there's no bottom line in those for him. But you can at least take heart: there's a big bottom line in climate change denial.
Also I'm just going to point it out again because it's funny to me: you tried to use a board game as a reason why you were well informed about WWII. Now don't get me wrong that is profoundly stupid, but you also did it to people who have at least a passing familiarity with how often games fudge history for gameplay purposes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, shall we consider again the actual scientific evidences that PROVE Creation and conclusively DISPROVE any possibility of Evolution? Or is it too much fun for you to simply wallow in juvenile insult and sarcasm?
Which board game do you base this reality on? Does the Game of Life impose a racial 50% penalty to evolution based science when discussed on a forum?
Tell us, oh Ron, seeker of Milton Bradley reality
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, that seems to be one major area where we differ. I do not believe that reality is determined by majority vote, even majority vote of scientists. There are responsible, qualified scientists who do not choose to misinterpret obvious data to fit the preconceived worldview of evolution, which has been clung to so stubbornly by hedonists so that they could avoid having to face the possibility of having to someday face up to a Divine Judge. And I can quote exponents of evolution on that being their motivation.
Facts are what matter, Rakeesh. Facts that cannot BE interpreted any other way than the Creationist way. These are what I have presented on this forum before, and most of you chose to ignore it, refused to actually come to grips with it, hid behind appeals to "the majority of scientists." May I remind you that the majority of scientists once scoffed at the idea of rocks falling out of the sky.
It is God, the Creator, who alone determines all of reality itself. These words record the absolute, inescapable truth: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9; NKJV) This is the one true reality. This is the truth; and it is knowable.
All the scientific facts of the universe bear this out. I have shown this before, and am prepared to do so again. The theory of evolution has been completely and utterly refuted. Here is a link which I recommend to a responsible source of scientific evidence that verifies Creation: https://www.creationresearch.org/index.php
[ November 22, 2016, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're lying again. I did not say 'a majority of scientists claim 'x', therefore it is true.' Though it's not simply a majority, it's an overwhelming and enduring majority which has become the foundation of so much knowledge that is useful in the real world.
No, what I said was that you claim the authority and respectability of scientists by referring to your own tiny minority of experts and entirely discounting all of the rest as not just wrong but willfully wrong and deceitful.
Anyway, skip past all of your other bullshit if you don't mind. But I would love to hear you quote a proponent-a scientist of some sort and not just someone from the Internet-of evolution who claims a belief in evolution because he or she wishes to avoid having to face a Christian God. If you can find and quote one who actually says that, and not some version of your usual bullshit of inferring what they 'really' mean I'll promptly concede you were right. About that.
Oh, and for the record? Variations on the theme 'it would be a crappy world if some shade of the Christian God is who we had to answer to' won't suffice as it doesn't meet your own words.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have bumped up the thread where I previously presented many of these arguments and evidences. It is titled "Young Earth Creationism." I do have more to add, even more conclusive arguments and evidences.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As I told members of the forum I frequent most commonly, AI-Jane, I like to post here in Hatrack every so often because it seems to make the liberals who frequent here so mad.
We thank you for plainly admitting to both us and your islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic home forum that your reason for posting here is to amuse yourself by making people mad, but largely you miss how people generally respond to your presence. it's not 'ooh that ron lambert makes me so mad with his truth bombs' and more 'ron lambert is so entertainingly dumb sometimes, like that time he used tabletop wargaming experience to explain the realities of world war 2, and pretty much everyone was laughing at him'
still, thank you again for admitting why you post here. above all else i am glad to see you admit your pettiness!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it's not 'ooh that ron lambert makes me so mad with his truth bombs' and more 'ron lambert is so entertainingly dumb sometimes
Pretty much this. I read Ron's posts for the entertainment value alone - he's like the board clown representing a parody of a conservative. He's almost like his own strawman.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Waiting for you to quote hedonistic scientists admitting that their belief in evolution is a means to avoid acknowledging a future Divine Judgment, Ron. This is another of those things that won't go away.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It scares me. When Ron said that Trump must not be so bad as he feared because he angers liberals, I wonder how badly he's been brainwashed.
Ron, Trump is exactly the evil, immoral scumbag of your first impressions. Liberals may disagree with you on a lot, but they aren't the opposite of everything you hold dear, and pure evil. You don't have to love everything they hate.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it's not 'ooh that ron lambert makes me so mad with his truth bombs' and more 'ron lambert is so entertainingly dumb sometimes
Pretty much this. I read Ron's posts for the entertainment value alone - he's like the board clown representing a parody of a conservative. He's almost like his own strawman.
I find it can also provoke some good info as people tilt against the windmill. Ron's not going to learn anything but I might.
See the WW2 discussion for example.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Germany didn't conquer Poland alone, for starters. In order to get the RAF 'on the ropes', the Luftwaffe was strained to the breaking point itself. It had achieved major successes in Europe, but it was called *World War 2* for a reason. One ally, Italy, was actually worse than no benefit, it was a hindrance. Its other ally was so far away it could offer no significant aid at all other than to distract Germany's enemies-and they dropped many of their commitments in Asia anyway to meet them in Europe. Japan was never going to be able to achieve victory in the Pacific, and supposing a series of miracles and Germany took a few more major cities in the USSR...I supppse the same leaders willing to spend the lives of their people like pennies just surrendered?
1. Germany was extremely lucky, or Hitler extremely cunning and far-sighted. The fact that France did not attack Germany (but limited itself to the Phony War) in September 1939 is a single most criticized event in Polish historiography. Obviously it was understandable back then, but from our perspective it was a catastrophic mistake. Urban legend has it that Hitler fainted when he learned that Allies respected the alliance with Poland and declared war. UK had limited land forces, but France had a massive number of divisions right on the border, mobilised and ready for action. Had they really attacked, the war would have ended within a month, with Germany divided in half between France and Poland.
2. Delcaring war against USSR wasn't that stupid, at all. Taking Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad wasn't impossible. In my opinion, the single most important moment was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. If US entered the war a year or year and half later, Germany could possibly defeat USSR. Make peace, releasing several states as puppets (Slovakia and Vichy style).
3. As a Pole I personally believe that the worst mistake Germany made was not allying with Poland in 1936. Moreover, I think it would save millions of lives, not only Polish citizens (both non-Jewish and Jewish). Imagine extra 70 infantry divisions and much shorter supply lines, no heavy gorilla warfare on Polish territory, when attacking USSR. It is debated that 50 or so divisions was what Germany lacked. After Piłsudski's death Germany lowered it's flags and the relationship really wasn't that bad. For Poland Allies where far to far away, and this is why we ended up on the wrong side of the iron curtain. It is completely imaginable that istead of joining the Allies, Poland could take the Swedish/Italian path, securing German eastern flank during Fall Gelb and Fall Rot (without declaring war against UK and France), and then helping defeat Stalin during Operation Barbarosa. Polish socialist government would never allow the holocaust, many of the members of the government being Jewish themselves. I Russia, a puppet government would be installed. US would enter the war, invade, Poland would change sides. 75% fewer civilian casualties. Weaker Russia.
And my beloved Warsaw not razed to the ground.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Szymon, that is an interesting option I had not considered. Was there a credible chance Germany could have allied with Poland? Would they have been able to get Stalin to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which assured Germany it would not be attacked from the east?
Poland certainly has long hated Russia. I heard of a Polish account that Poles used to pray that China would invade Poland three times. Their rationale was that if the Chinese army invaded Poland three times, it would have to cross Russia six times.
And certainly, the German invasion of Russia when it came would be viewed as a stroke of genius, had they not suffered the adverse weather they did (mud and cold), and had they equipped the Wehrmacht with cold weather clothes and other gear.
None of this, of course, changes the objective historical fact that at one point, Germany had virtually unchallenged dominance in continental Europe, having defeated the supposedly "invincible" French Army and its vaunted Maginot Line, and having driven the British Expeditionary Force (the best trained soldiers in the war) off the continent. How else can you measure when Germany was on the verge of winning WWII?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Szymon, that is an interesting option I had not considered. Was there a credible chance Germany could have allied with Poland? Would they have been able to get Stalin to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which assured Germany it would not be attacked from the east?
...
None of this, of course, changes the objective historical fact that at one point, Germany had virtually unchallenged dominance in continental Europe, having defeated the supposedly "invincible" French Army and its vaunted Maginot Line, and having driven the British Expeditionary Force (the best trained soldiers in the war) off the continent. How else can you measure when Germany was on the verge of winning WWII?
There would be no need of a Nazi-soviet pact; Germany only needed it for the 1939/1940 campaigns. Poland would be more than capable of defending the eastern border while Germany conquered the West.
As to hate: the hate for Germans is still strong with the elderly, like my grandparents for example. My grandmother lost 8 uncles (families were pretty numerous back then) in war. BUT they were combatants, they chose to fight. Other than that they remember Germans as civilised and cultural people, who were clean and generally nice to people. Hell, the installed electricity in my grandparents' village, something they didn't have before the war. It doesn't mean their actions weren't evil, especially against civilian populace. Poles and Jews alike.
But the Russians... When you hear the stories, it's still chilling. When Russians entered, they raped, killed, pillaged and burned everything to the ground. Men would hide women in forests, in holes in the ground. Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.
This, among many others, is a reason why Poles are generally rusophobes from around 17th century. Our border with Russia changed dozens of times, through numerous wars - at first Poland won (15th, 16th and the beginning of 17th century, ever expanding eastwards, Poland is the only nation to have ever conquered and occupied Moscow. Russian main national holiday is a commemoration of riding Poles out of Kremlin), then Russia, always. Our western border with Holy Roman Empire hardly changed for 300 years or so. Actually the only major war Poland (as an independent state) fought against Germany after 1525 was the September Campaign in 1939.
Was it plausible? I don't know. It was definitely "noble" not to ally with a totalitarian state like that. However, all the atrocities didn't take place yet before 1939. Raison d'État, in my opinion, was to survive. You CANNOT fight against USSR and Germany at the same time. You need to pick one. Our diplomacy was doing just that - courting both powers - until 1938, waiting for how things unravel. I'd choose Germany, which was culturally, religiously, scientifically much closer than Russia. But at the same time our diplomacy in the USA since Woodraw Wilson was also very successful, same with France, not so much with Britain's Chamberlain. That's why we chose the "good ones", who were thousands miles away. When Poland was losing, British bombers dropped propaganda leaflets on Berlin.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How else can you measure when Germany was on the verge of winning WWII?
The real question is how close were the Russians to losing? From what I've seen, no where near it. The only way to win a war is to get the other guys to lose and the Germans had no way to force a loss on the Russians.
ETA: In the same way that the Japanese couldn't force a loss on the US. Their only hope was that the US would accept a negotiated settlement. They didn't get one.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: Except that until the early 90's the Royal family didn't even pay income tax, never mind inheritance tax. The royal family owes *us,* not the other way around.
They are more then rich enough to pay for the repairs to Buckingham Palace themselves, but privilege and custom have turned them to footing the bill towards taxpayers.
And this in a time of austerity where social services and benefits are facing cuts across the board.
My entire family are Royalists, but as I said to my parents once if you want your baby boy to grow up a royalist you *probably* shouldn't have raised him the the US.
Why should the Royal Family pay income tax? They are the State.
The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained He gets a few details wrong but in the end it is not clear cut the idea that the tax paying is paying for their upkeep, but rather the Royal Family in effect pays "the people" a lot through the rights to their lands leased to Parliament.
Basically the amount you would get through income tax etc, and not paying their upkeep is LESS than what England gets by being able to keep profiting and managing the Crown lands.
quote: Elison, I do not need to concede something that is not true, that you never proved, that goes contrary to common sense. When Germany had virtually undisputed dominion of continental Europe, having defeated and taken over Poland and France, and driven out the British army and had the RAF on the ropes, and the USA had not yet entered the war, they most certainly were on the verge of winning WWII. Why do you keep repeating the same foolish claim that they never reached this point, as if simply claiming the same thing over and over again could ever make it true?
They lost the war. Not a single thing you said actually mattered because they still lost.
Lets look at the details; again; since that's all you do, is repeat yourself, and the same assertions, again and again:
quote: When Germany had virtually undisputed dominion of continental Europe
From 1940 to 1941, a grand total of maybe two years tops before it was no longer "undisputed" by virtue of the Russian campaign.
quote: having defeated and taken over Poland and France, and driven out the British army
Again, because you appear to be a counterfeit thinker who has never responded to my actual arguments; I'll point it out again: Hitler and the Germans got lucky. Lucky that the British and French decided not to pressure the Germans in the Rhineland while the invasion of Poland was happening.
Lucky that the British and French decided to spurn the Soviets who had reached out to the Entente for an alliance to contain Germany; and when this didn't happen (second time too, the first time was over Czechoslavakia) decided to seek out the Molotov-Rippentrop pact.
Also lucky that when the Germans invaded France that the British and French High Command did not sufficiently protect Sedan; lucky they did not react fast enough while the Germans had a massive traffic jam in the Ardennes forest. Lucky that the French High Command did not keep pace with the doctrinal advances in tank warfare.
Additionally they got lucky that Guderian and Manstein had went over the heads of the OKW to Hitler directly to propose the Ardennes offencive when OKW was planning for Schieffelin Plan Mark 2.0.
Remember, you seem to put all the blame on Hitler for the defeats of the German army in 1941 onwards; but neglect to attribute the successes Hitler rightly deserved credit for.
But you're not going to respond to any of this.
quote: and had the RAF on the ropes
Again Ron, this is false, you're a liar, and a fraud, a insignificant counterfeit thinker. I very much well explained why the Luftwaffe did not in fact have the RAF on the ropes; you can actually refute the individual points I made, or not, but if you don't, I'll just repeat myself; that you are a counterfeit thinker; that is until you actually respond to the counter arguments I made.
quote: why do you keep repeating the same foolish claim that they never reached this point, as if simply claiming the same thing over and over again could ever make it true?
Because you are a liar and have significantly change your argument.
If you go back to your original post, you clearly said that they, the Germans, were on the verge of winning WWII if only they could take Moscow, that there was only "three" battles, you claimed, that they lost that had they won, they would have won the war.
Now you appear to be claiming that as long as they didn't invade Russia they would have won? If the US had not entered the war they would not have won? Then you are a liar and a fraud, who is dishonestly shifting the goalposts.
Remember again, I quoted at least two history books that you can confirm my early facts and figures that I quoted for you.
The Germans were never going to take Moscow; Moscow would've been Stalingrad with subway tunnels.
quote: I hope you know who Aldous Huxley was, and his influential role in the development of evolution-based philosophy.
Didn't he write a science fiction novel? Are you quoting his science fiction now and extrapolating that to all other scientists?
quote: Delcaring war against USSR wasn't that stupid, at all. Taking Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad wasn't impossible. In my opinion, the single most important moment was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. If US entered the war a year or year and half later, Germany could possibly defeat USSR. Make peace, releasing several states as puppets (Slovakia and Vichy style).
This is 100% wrong.
Germany did not have the resources or the manpower to take any of those objectives and hold them. Operation Typhoon lost all of its steam 14 km away from Moscow (and for the record, the Germans absolutely could not see the Kremlin from 14km away this is historical fact Ron).
The Germans did probably take close to 95% of the western bank of Stalingrad; but again; it was impossible to hold it. Operation Uranus had something of a 3-1 advantage versus the Germans plus a massive geographical and strategic advantage; plus the matter of choosing to attack the poorly defended flanks.
As a result of the above; there's no way the Germans take Leningrad; it took the whole resources of Army Group North to maintain the siege and they couldn't consistently keep the road of life closed. There was just no reserves to throw at Leningrad.
quote: As a Pole I personally believe that the worst mistake Germany made was not allying with Poland in 1936.
Consider that Germany would've lost either way; but also Poland would've been much smaller and more thoroughly occupied by the Soviets.
To be specific, for Poland and Germany to have allied would've required ceding Danzig and the Polish Corridor to the Reich and your only port.
You would NEVER had to have worried about the USSR if the British and French had accept the Soviet offer of alliance to contain Germany.
quote: I Russia, a puppet government would be installed. US would enter the war, invade, Poland would change sides. 75% fewer civilian casualties. Weaker Russia.
This is Ron levels of wishful thinking. Polish troops would not have been able to turn the tide against Russia; in fact if this results instead in the Soviets at war with German in 1939/1940 it results in the war ending in 1943, but with an occupied Poland without the Allies giving a shit. And thus no iron curtain or Cold War.
quote: None of this, of course, changes the objective historical fact that at one point, Germany had virtually unchallenged dominance in continental Europe, having defeated the supposedly "invincible" French Army and its vaunted Maginot Line, and having driven the British Expeditionary Force (the best trained soldiers in the war) off the continent. How else can you measure when Germany was on the verge of winning WWII?
No, no, no, no, and through "Facts, Logic, and Empirical Evidence, and Logistics." in order.
Basically again, you counterfeit thinker, you've changed the goal posts. You said in your original post that there was "three battles/mistakes the Germans made" that would have won them the war if they hadn't; how about instead of attempting to shift the burden of proof upon us; you actually elaborate why you feel the RAF was on the ropes; where's the statistics? How many planes were the RAF losing? How many were the Germans losing? What was the total aircraft production during this time?
quote: The Luftwaffe suffered various problems which hampered its effectiveness in the Battle of Britain. It was designed as a close-support weapon moving forward with ground troops, not as an instrument for a strategic bombing campaign against a determined opposing fighter force.
Its lack of heavy bombers made it difficult to inflict strategically significant damage on British targets. The Luftwaffe’s fighter force had no effective method of plotting the positions of Fighter Command aircraft and also lacked any means of ground-to-air control of its machines.
The Germans suffered from supply problems and a lack of aircraft reserves throughout the battle, largely as a result of underachievement in aircraft production. Their rapid advance through Western Europe in the spring of 1940 forced them to hastily establish a network of air bases across occupied Europe. More significantly, the Germans had difficulties establishing adequate local repair facilities, forcing the removal of damaged aircraft back to Germany for fixing.
There were similar shortages of German aircrew. German fighter pilots were well-trained and had significantly more combat experience than RAF pilots. However, it was difficult for the Luftwaffe to offset its losses of experienced pilots. Any RAF pilot who successfully bailed out after being shot down over British territory could, if not injured, fly again. By contrast, Luftwaffe pilots who survived being shot down became prisoners of war.
This DOES NOT paint a picture of the Luftwaffe having a good time of it.
Statistically the Luftwaffe lost 1,977 aircraft, the RAF only lost 1,744. The Luftwaffe lost 200 more aircraft. If the Battle went on for long how does this ratio change?
Additionally by November 2nd the British had 40% more pilots while the Luftwaffe's declined by 30% without recovering.
There isn't a way that the Luftwaffe can carry on that struggle without exhausting itself; you never ever, at any point, elaborate what "on the ropes" even means because it certainly isn't defined as "losing the war of attrition" because statistically they were clearly winning that!
quote: Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.
I think you're exaggerating the extent that this took place that together with your earlier wishes for a Polish-Nazi alliance makes me question your motives.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.
I think you're exaggerating the extent that this took place that together with your earlier wishes for a Polish-Nazi alliance makes me question your motives.
This kind of first (second) hand info really shouldn't be so easily disregarded
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Granted, the idea of Poland allying with Germany is far fetched. Last year there was a gripping book published here "Ribbentrop-Beck", as opposed to "Ribbetrop-Molotov". A really great read. Altough, Poland had a massive army (granted- mostly infantry, but with some really good new anti-tank weapons, as well as one of the best medium bombers at that time) and it COULD be enough to overtake Moscow and Leningrad.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote: Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.
I think you're exaggerating the extent that this took place that together with your earlier wishes for a Polish-Nazi alliance makes me question your motives.
This kind of first (second) hand info really shouldn't be so easily disregarded
I just wrote a lengthy essay here, but I deleted it. It's like choosing between plague and cholera. Both Germans and Russians acted evil, it would be blasphemous to the memory of the victims, including my family, to write what is a bigger and what is lesser evil. Let me just say that German evil was "systemic" with orders and stuff, organized xenocide. Russian war crimes were more spontaneous.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Russians really behaved like uncivilized savages, completely crazy. This is a testimony every member of my family repeats. Germans were bad, but Russians were just... Beasts.
I think you're exaggerating the extent that this took place that together with your earlier wishes for a Polish-Nazi alliance makes me question your motives.
This kind of first (second) hand info really shouldn't be so easily disregarded
Yes they can, if his family were people classified as class enemies its likely they would've faced a disproportionate amount of misery that would skew their views. The Red Army in Poland from what I've seen was no more or less disciplined than any other part of the war except for when they crossed into Germany. Recall that a part of what would be considered Poland then was incorporated into Belarus so for the initial liberation of Poland they would've been liberating Soviet territory.
Like the descriptions of Soviet solders as "beasts" is perfectly in line with most right wing literature, it isn't credible.
quote: A really great read. Altough, Poland had a massive army (granted- mostly infantry, but with some really good new anti-tank weapons, as well as one of the best medium bombers at that time) and it COULD be enough to overtake Moscow and Leningrad.
No. This is Polandball nationalistic wank, sorry but you're wrong.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?
There's no way that that many undocumented immigrants voted. In previous elections, there have been less than 100 votes cast by non-citizens (I believe the number I saw was in the 50s).
Also, undocumented immigrants are terrified of coming to the attention of the government and being deported (or detained for months or years in appalling conditions before being deported). Therefore they are extremely unlikely to want to go anywhere near a polling place and take that kind of risk.
And, if there really are that many votes for Clinton that could be "illegal" why isn't Trump or anyone from the Republican party supporting any kind of recount effort?
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that most estimates of the illegal population put it at under 11 million of all ages, I think 3 million voters is -- to put this gently -- rather optimistic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Someone estimated that about 3 million illegal aliens voted in the past election, and most of them presumably voted for Hillary. It was then reasoned that if these illegal votes were taken out, then Trump actually would have won by a multi-million vote landslide in the popular vote. What do you folks think about that? Did that many illegal aliens vote? Should non-citizens have been allowed to vote?
So just like how you completely made up the assertion that the Luftwaffe had the RAF on the ropes, completely made up the idea that the Germans could have taken Moscow or Stalingrad, and completely made up the idea that Hitler was close to winning WWII from these prepositions you now also whole heartedly accept the made up and fabricated notion that 3 million people illegally voted for Hillary; not only that, but further extend this delusion into asserting that it was also 3 million illegals who did so.
Not unexpected from someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots a folks, in general, not just round these here parts, believe in something larger than themselves. I doubt they would enjoy being lumped together w Ron
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
