3 ms·

> What does Kazakh famine of 1919 [0] has to do with Germans??!! You didn't mention "Kazakh famine of 1919", you mentioned "Russians, Ukrainians and Kazakhs" i

> What does Kazakh famine of 1919 [0] has to do with Germans??!! You didn't mention "Kazakh famine of 1919", you mentioned "Russians, Ukrainians and Kazakhs" in reply to my posts about Nazis being classed as victims by the The Black Book Of Communism. > I guess, not being a former Soviet citizen you have no idea what it was. You were a Soviet citizen in 1919? Because that's the only way you know any better than I do. What part of the USSR are you from anyway? You seem quite cagey about it, despite thinking being born in some corner of the largest state on Earth 27+ years ago somehow wins you an argument by default. > And how good Jews had it there. So you want to make treatment of Jews part of your Naziism is better than Communism argument too? > does not, by any stretch of imagination mean that communists were an iota better than Nazis Then, for the second time of asking, explain how your life would have been improved by your country being under Nazi occupation rather than living under Communism. > Your insistence on excusing mass murder because some of those murdered might have, at some point in the future, possibly, had they survived, killed someone else Feel free to quote anything I've written that's even remotely close to the ballpark of anything even approaching that. > isn't much different from what Holocaust deniers do. This from someone who could be doing literally anything on the internet, and chooses to spend time minimizing the number of people killed by the Nazis - direct quote from you: "[the Nazis] killed far fewer people" - which is exactly what Holocaust deniers do. > Does show where antisemites come from, though. You should probably clarify this statement, because it sounds like you're justifying people becoming anti-Semites. Are you?

Fins 9y ago
>You didn't mention "Kazakh famine of 1919", you mentioned "Russians, Ukrainians and Kazakhs" in reply to my posts about Nazis being classed as victims by the The Black Book Of Communism. And you replied with "they deserved it". Obviously, noone can expect a commie sympathiser to actually know, or care, who was slaughtered by commies and when. But people who do not want to end up at the next Nuremberg trial consder collective responsibility to be a little bit out of fashion these days. > You were a Soviet citizen in 1919? Because that's the only way you know any better than I do. There was no Soviet Union in 1919. It would logically follow, though, that there are some Russian citizens who were alive in 1919 among my ancestors. They told stories. > What part of the USSR are you from anyway? You seem quite cagey about it, despite thinking being born in some corner of the largest state on Earth 27+ years ago somehow wins you an argument by default. I didn't know thjat not answering a question that was never asked is being cagey. Why don't you straight out asdk what my ethnicity is? Also, yes, having first-hand experience does win some arguments with ignorant kids easily. > So you want to make treatment of Jews part of your Naziism is better than Communism argument too? It is you who reduces everything to treatment of Jews. > Then, for the second time of asking, explain how your life would have been improved by your country being under Nazi occupation rather than living under Communism. Not everything in life is about you. > Feel free to quote anything I've written that's even remotely close to the ballpark of anything even approaching that. Umm, any of your messages in this thread? Because that's exactly what you have been writing. > This from someone who could be doing literally anything on the internet, and chooses to spend time minimizing the number of people killed by the Nazis - direct quote from you: "[the Nazis] killed far fewer people" - which is exactly what Holocaust deniers do. Actually, Holocaust deniers go on and on that nothing happened, and if something happened it was very minor, and if anyone got killed, they surely deserved it. Which is exactly your line ofd reasoning here. Even applied to at least hundreds of thuosands of people killed before there even were any nazis in existence. Also, apparently sometimes one does need to point out obvious and commonly accepted truths. Like how even the low-end estimate from those critics of The Black Book that you mention put the number of victims of communism at ~3 times that of nazis. Granbted, commies had more time to go at it. > You should probably clarify this statement, because it sounds like you're justifying people becoming anti-Semites. Are you? As nicely as it wuild've fed your persecution complex, no, they would not take me, if you knowq what I mean.
- Tech-Noir 9y ago
  > And you replied with "they deserved it". The only person who has said "deserved it" in this discussion is you, so I don't know why you're pretending to be quoting me. I said they - people who fought on the side of the Nazis, particularly against their own country, in order to enable Nazi genocide programs - don't count as victims of Communism. > There was no Soviet Union in 1919. I didn't say there was a Soviet Union in 1919. There was Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1919, which as a "Soviet citizen" I assumed you would be aware of. > It would logically follow, though, that there are some Russian citizens who were alive in 1919 among my ancestors. How would that logically follow? You haven't said that you're Russian, despite me asking where you're from multiple times. > I didn't know thjat not answering a question that was never asked is being cagey. I literally just asked you - again - what part of the USSR you are from and again you didn't answer. > Also, yes, having first-hand experience does win some arguments with ignorant kids easily. To have even first hand memories, let alone experience, of even the most recent subjects you've talked about you'd have to be about 75 years old. Are you? > It is you who reduces everything to treatment of Jews. Nice to know that you think the topic of the treatment of Jews constitutes reducing an argument, even in a reply where you were criticizing the anti-Semitism of Stalin (the same Stalin who set up a Jewish homeland on Soviet soil, and was the first person in the world to recognize Israel). Ah wait, I forgot, you're arguing the Nazis were better than Communists, aren't you. And the only way to do that is attribute all deaths on Communist soil to malice on the part of Communism (then add whatever it takes to reach "100 million") while ignoring deliberate, systematic and industrial-scale human extermination programs and policies - absolutely unheard of anywhere else in history, before or since - enacted by the Nazis. > Not everything in life is about you. No, the question was about you. Specifically how your life would have been improved had you lived under Nazi occupation, since you argue that what you lived under - Communism - is "quite a bit worse" (your words) than Nazism. > Actually, Holocaust deniers go on and on that nothing happened, and if something happened it was very minor As I said, like spending their time arguing that what the Nazis did was very minor - "they killed far fewer people" - compared to something else. Again, what kind of person would even think of bothering to exonerate or rehabilitate the Nazis in such a way? > Like how even the low-end estimate from those critics of The Black Book that you mention put the number of victims of communism at ~3 times that of nazis. Hah, "those critics"? You mean the actual authors of the book. Let's repeat how absolutely inane and insane this is: The authors of the book could not even decide amongst themselves on which imaginary - but definitely Worse Than The Nazis(tm) - number was historically factual, to the point where they themselves denounced their own book as fictitious. Meanwhile MAGA-heads, up to and including the White House itself, cite the number that even the authors - even you - think is going too far (not because it's made up, but because it looks made up). So which number, from the several provided by this fine example of historical research, do you think is true? Since only one number can be true, we know for a certain fact that most of the numbers given have to be false. So why believe any of them? > As nicely as it wuild've fed your persecution complex, no, they would not take me, if you knowq what I mean. I don't. What, specifically, do you mean?

Fins 9y ago

>You didn't mention "Kazakh famine of 1919", you mentioned "Russians, Ukrainians and Kazakhs" in reply to my posts about Nazis being classed as victims by the The Black Book Of Communism. And you replied with "they deserved it". Obviously, noone can expect a commie sympathiser to actually know, or care, who was slaughtered by commies and when. But people who do not want to end up at the next Nuremberg trial consder collective responsibility to be a little bit out of fashion these days. > You were a Soviet citizen in 1919? Because that's the only way you know any better than I do. There was no Soviet Union in 1919. It would logically follow, though, that there are some Russian citizens who were alive in 1919 among my ancestors. They told stories. > What part of the USSR are you from anyway? You seem quite cagey about it, despite thinking being born in some corner of the largest state on Earth 27+ years ago somehow wins you an argument by default. I didn't know thjat not answering a question that was never asked is being cagey. Why don't you straight out asdk what my ethnicity is? Also, yes, having first-hand experience does win some arguments with ignorant kids easily. > So you want to make treatment of Jews part of your Naziism is better than Communism argument too? It is you who reduces everything to treatment of Jews. > Then, for the second time of asking, explain how your life would have been improved by your country being under Nazi occupation rather than living under Communism. Not everything in life is about you. > Feel free to quote anything I've written that's even remotely close to the ballpark of anything even approaching that. Umm, any of your messages in this thread? Because that's exactly what you have been writing. > This from someone who could be doing literally anything on the internet, and chooses to spend time minimizing the number of people killed by the Nazis - direct quote from you: "[the Nazis] killed far fewer people" - which is exactly what Holocaust deniers do. Actually, Holocaust deniers go on and on that nothing happened, and if something happened it was very minor, and if anyone got killed, they surely deserved it. Which is exactly your line ofd reasoning here. Even applied to at least hundreds of thuosands of people killed before there even were any nazis in existence. Also, apparently sometimes one does need to point out obvious and commonly accepted truths. Like how even the low-end estimate from those critics of The Black Book that you mention put the number of victims of communism at ~3 times that of nazis. Granbted, commies had more time to go at it. > You should probably clarify this statement, because it sounds like you're justifying people becoming anti-Semites. Are you? As nicely as it wuild've fed your persecution complex, no, they would not take me, if you knowq what I mean.

Tech-Noir 9y ago
> And you replied with "they deserved it". The only person who has said "deserved it" in this discussion is you, so I don't know why you're pretending to be quoting me. I said they - people who fought on the side of the Nazis, particularly against their own country, in order to enable Nazi genocide programs - don't count as victims of Communism. > There was no Soviet Union in 1919. I didn't say there was a Soviet Union in 1919. There was Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1919, which as a "Soviet citizen" I assumed you would be aware of. > It would logically follow, though, that there are some Russian citizens who were alive in 1919 among my ancestors. How would that logically follow? You haven't said that you're Russian, despite me asking where you're from multiple times. > I didn't know thjat not answering a question that was never asked is being cagey. I literally just asked you - again - what part of the USSR you are from and again you didn't answer. > Also, yes, having first-hand experience does win some arguments with ignorant kids easily. To have even first hand memories, let alone experience, of even the most recent subjects you've talked about you'd have to be about 75 years old. Are you? > It is you who reduces everything to treatment of Jews. Nice to know that you think the topic of the treatment of Jews constitutes reducing an argument, even in a reply where you were criticizing the anti-Semitism of Stalin (the same Stalin who set up a Jewish homeland on Soviet soil, and was the first person in the world to recognize Israel). Ah wait, I forgot, you're arguing the Nazis were better than Communists, aren't you. And the only way to do that is attribute all deaths on Communist soil to malice on the part of Communism (then add whatever it takes to reach "100 million") while ignoring deliberate, systematic and industrial-scale human extermination programs and policies - absolutely unheard of anywhere else in history, before or since - enacted by the Nazis. > Not everything in life is about you. No, the question was about you. Specifically how your life would have been improved had you lived under Nazi occupation, since you argue that what you lived under - Communism - is "quite a bit worse" (your words) than Nazism. > Actually, Holocaust deniers go on and on that nothing happened, and if something happened it was very minor As I said, like spending their time arguing that what the Nazis did was very minor - "they killed far fewer people" - compared to something else. Again, what kind of person would even think of bothering to exonerate or rehabilitate the Nazis in such a way? > Like how even the low-end estimate from those critics of The Black Book that you mention put the number of victims of communism at ~3 times that of nazis. Hah, "those critics"? You mean the actual authors of the book. Let's repeat how absolutely inane and insane this is: The authors of the book could not even decide amongst themselves on which imaginary - but definitely Worse Than The Nazis(tm) - number was historically factual, to the point where they themselves denounced their own book as fictitious. Meanwhile MAGA-heads, up to and including the White House itself, cite the number that even the authors - even you - think is going too far (not because it's made up, but because it looks made up). So which number, from the several provided by this fine example of historical research, do you think is true? Since only one number can be true, we know for a certain fact that most of the numbers given have to be false. So why believe any of them? > As nicely as it wuild've fed your persecution complex, no, they would not take me, if you knowq what I mean. I don't. What, specifically, do you mean?