Katyn Forest

Katyn Forest (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 2:10:20 PM)
Did anyone else notice Putin's participation in a ceremony held at the site of the Katyn Forest massacre.20,000 Polish officers were assasinted by seciruty forces of the Soviet Union....Of course the Soviet Union for years denied any participation in this event....seems they assumed they could just roll it into Nazi atocities and no one would notice.Thankfully they were wrong and the truth has long been known,though officially denied by the Soviets till yesterdays event. While not exactly apologising for the massacre Putin did acknowledge,for the first time Soviet responsibility for the atrocity.Of course the Soviet Union was in Poland at the time due to the Soviet -German non agression Pact. Talk about dancing with the devil....I wonder who leads when Hitler dances with Stalin? Tommie,are you around?

mnottertail -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 2:12:45 PM)
Thats a hard one, I dont see Adolf letting Joe refer to him as old pussy lips for some reason. Joe was pretty good with the axe and didn't bother with frying pans.

slvemike4u -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 2:16:47 PM)
He also knew a "good thing" when he saw it....and WWII was a handy dandy opportunity to lets say attend to a lot of messy business.....And roll those body counts right into the war statistics. Yeah no moss grew on "uncle" Joe.

reynardfox -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 2:56:55 PM)
Britain declared war on Germany in the first place as we had guaranteed Polish territorial integrity. Well and good, but Russia also invaded Poland and no one has ever convinced me that we should not have declared war on them too.

slvemike4u -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 3:08:27 PM)
Do you think Churchill,a rabid anti-communist,had he been in power in Sept .'39 might have possibly been of a like mind. Not that England declaring war on Russia and Germany wouldn't have been damm near suicidal [8\|]

popeye1250 -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 6:30:48 PM)
I heard somewhere that Stalin killed millions more people than Hitler ever did. What a Bahstard!

NorthernGent -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 6:40:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Do you think Churchill,a rabid anti-communist,had he been in power in Sept .'39 might have possibly been of a like mind. Not that England declaring war on Russia and Germany wouldn't have been damm near suicidal [8\|] No. At the outbreak of WW1 there was bewilderment in some quarters that Britain could fight a war on the side of Russia against Germany - the Germans were seen as like minded and the Russians barbarians - 20 years later things hadn't changed much - except the Germans' political system. So - convenience alone dictated that the USSR was an ally during the war - not that it started that way - they had a pact with the Germans when Britain declared war on Germany - but yeah you're right on one thing - as soon as the war was over the British Government saw the USSR as the threat. What's probably not so well known is that there was a certain amount of sympathy among the British people from the 1920s - 1940s - much anti-establishment sentiment among the working classes - but the excesses of the Soviet regime simply weren't known then - the stories filtered through in the 1950s. And - protecting the sovereignty of Poland? Not likely. Britain simply couldn't have one dominant power on the contintent - same as WW1 - as that would have meant Germany controlling the Northern coast and the ports - which would have compromised our trading routes. Napoleon's France wasn't that far in the distance - and the government had the experience of what that meant for us. In terms of the Soviet actions in Poland - violence was an accepted tool in the Soviet state's arsenal - it was conceived in violence and functioned in violence. There was a lot of state sanctioned and controlled ethnic cleansing all over the place - with people being transported and 'repatriated' from and to various parts of the Soviet Union - with loads of people just being murdered along the way or shipped off to some labour camp. I'm not sure that people realise just what a mad/ruthless/paranoid state that the Soviet Union was. And there's a popular misconception that the wheels came off with Stalin - it didn't - Lenin and Trotsky were equally ruthless and paranoid.

Real0ne -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 6:46:16 PM)
power and money same shit different day. what gives britain the authority to determine what goes on in other countries.

NorthernGent -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 6:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I heard somewhere that Stalin killed millions more people than Hitler ever did. What a Bahstard! Thing with the Soviets was that no one was safe - not even the people at the very top - except Stalin. Yeah the Nazis stamped out the SA in an internal power struggle but they were nowhere near as paranoid as the Soviets - not that that's saying much. The Soviets did a very similar thing to the Nazis in that just as the Nazis moved large numbers of people in and out of the borders of the German Reich under the banner of a country united by ethnicity - so did the Soviets. But the paranoia and ruthlessness preceeded Stalin. They were different types of totalitarian systems - one based on racial ideology and the other on indiscriminate violence. That part of Europe - Central and Eastern Europe is a strange place - primarily because of the historical threat of armies marching over their borders which bred fear and extreme politics. No surprise that Anarchism was such a popular movement in that part of the world.

slvemike4u -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 6:59:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Do you think Churchill,a rabid anti-communist,had he been in power in Sept .'39 might have possibly been of a like mind. Not that England declaring war on Russia and Germany wouldn't have been damm near suicidal [8\|] No. At the outbreak of WW1 there was bewilderment in some quarters that Britain could fight a war on the side of Russia against Germany - the Germans were seen as like minded and the Russians barbarians - 20 years later things hadn't changed much - except the Germans' political system. So - convenience alone dictated that the USSR was an ally during the war - not that it started that way - they had a pact with the Germans when Britain declared war on Germany - but yeah you're right on one thing - as soon as the war was over the British Government saw the USSR as the threat. What's probably not so well known is that there was a certain amount of sympathy among the British people from the 1920s - 1940s - much anti-establishment sentiment among the working classes - but the excesses of the Soviet regime simply weren't known then - the stories filtered through in the 1950s. And - protecting the sovereignty of Poland? Not likely. Britain simply couldn't have one dominant power on the contintent - same as WW1 - as that would have meant Germany controlling the Northern coast and the ports - which would have compromised our trading routes. Napoleon's France wasn't that far in the distance - and the government had the experience of what that meant for us. In terms of the Soviet actions in Poland - violence was an accepted tool in the Soviet state's arsenal - it was conceived in violence and functioned in violence. There was a lot of state sanctioned and controlled ethnic cleansing all over the place - with people being transported and 'repatriated' from and to various parts of the Soviet Union - with loads of people just being murdered along the way or shipped off to some labour camp. I'm not sure that people realise just what a mad/ruthless/paranoid state that the Soviet Union was. And there's a popular misconception that the wheels came off with Stalin - it didn't - Lenin and Trotsky were equally ruthless and paranoid. Forget about not declaring war on Russia as an example of expediancy(or whatever other term you wish to lend it) the real betrayal and perhaps the most bitter pill Churchill was ever forced to swallow was the carving up of Europe which led to Poland being behind what Churchill later dubbed an "Iron Curtain"...to add salt to the wound the knowledge(or lack thereof ) of the fate of the Polish government in exile which was returned to Poland soil ,and Soviet control shortly after the war.Their fate was both predictable....and ,it seems to me highly avoidable had their been soem backbone showm by the postwar English Government. Still no tommie...what a shame.

NorthernGent -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 7:03:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne power and money same shit different day. what gives britain the authority to determine what goes on in other countries. In theory - not a lot. In practice - I suppose we have certain interests - and we're pretty convincing when we need people to help us - British use of intelligence/propaganda/misinformation is pretty impressive. But I suppose what goes around comes around - and whereas the British Government convinced the US government it was a good idea in WW1 - the US Government convinced the British Government that Iraq was a good idea. Like it or not Real0ne - the US and Britain have had similar interests for a hundred years now - and not just in 'money' terms - but in areas such scientific development and research where the US leads the world and Britain is second only to the US - which ain't bad for a small country off the North West coast of Europe. It just seems that our two governments have a similar outlook on the world - so naturally come to arrangements. Now I'd agree that governments and people are two different things - most people here wouldn't have a clue where somewhere like Idaho is and probably haven't even heard of it apart from unless it's been mentioned on television - and generally know nothing of the US and its people and care little. But governments tend to look for like minded governments to team up with - whereas people are more concerned with where the next pint is coming from.

Real0ne -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 7:10:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne power and money same shit different day. what gives britain the authority to determine what goes on in other countries. In theory - not a lot. In practice - I suppose we have certain interests - and we're pretty convincing when we need people to help us - British use of intelligence/propaganda/misinformation is pretty impressive. But I suppose what goes around comes around - and whereas the British Government convinced the US government it was a good idea in WW1 - the US Government convinced the British Government that Iraq was a good idea. Like it or not Real0ne - the US and Britain have had similar interests for a hundred years now - and not just in 'money' terms - but in areas such scientific development and research where the US leads the world and Britain is second only to the US - which ain't bad for a small country off the North West coast of Europe. It just seems that our two governments have a similar outlook on the world - so naturally come to arrangements. Now I'd agree that governments and people are two different things - most people here wouldn't have a clue where somewhere like Idaho is and probably haven't even heard of it apart from unless it's been mentioned on television - and generally know nothing of the US and its people and care little. But governments tend to look for like minded governments to team up with - whereas people are more concerned with where the next pint is coming from. yeh well its in the wise words of the constitutors that we should not make treaties more than we absolutely have to and I am still not satisfied that england has no interest in the us. Especially when the queen made changes to our social security back in 97. Thats part of parlimentary record. Combine that with most of our taxes being funneled out of the country and I do mean even property taxes. Then when you notice that most of our prezzies were brit origin there is a larger picture here than meets the nake d eye.

NorthernGent -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 7:28:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Do you think Churchill,a rabid anti-communist,had he been in power in Sept .'39 might have possibly been of a like mind. Not that England declaring war on Russia and Germany wouldn't have been damm near suicidal [8\|] No. At the outbreak of WW1 there was bewilderment in some quarters that Britain could fight a war on the side of Russia against Germany - the Germans were seen as like minded and the Russians barbarians - 20 years later things hadn't changed much - except the Germans' political system. So - convenience alone dictated that the USSR was an ally during the war - not that it started that way - they had a pact with the Germans when Britain declared war on Germany - but yeah you're right on one thing - as soon as the war was over the British Government saw the USSR as the threat. What's probably not so well known is that there was a certain amount of sympathy among the British people from the 1920s - 1940s - much anti-establishment sentiment among the working classes - but the excesses of the Soviet regime simply weren't known then - the stories filtered through in the 1950s. And - protecting the sovereignty of Poland? Not likely. Britain simply couldn't have one dominant power on the contintent - same as WW1 - as that would have meant Germany controlling the Northern coast and the ports - which would have compromised our trading routes. Napoleon's France wasn't that far in the distance - and the government had the experience of what that meant for us. In terms of the Soviet actions in Poland - violence was an accepted tool in the Soviet state's arsenal - it was conceived in violence and functioned in violence. There was a lot of state sanctioned and controlled ethnic cleansing all over the place - with people being transported and 'repatriated' from and to various parts of the Soviet Union - with loads of people just being murdered along the way or shipped off to some labour camp. I'm not sure that people realise just what a mad/ruthless/paranoid state that the Soviet Union was. And there's a popular misconception that the wheels came off with Stalin - it didn't - Lenin and Trotsky were equally ruthless and paranoid. Forget about not declaring war on Russia as an example of expediancy(or whatever other term you wish to lend it) the real betrayal and perhaps the most bitter pill Churchill was ever forced to swallow was the carving up of Europe which led to Poland being behind what Churchill later dubbed an "Iron Curtain"...to add salt to the wound the knowledge(or lack thereof ) of the fate of the Polish government in exile which was returned to Poland soil ,and Soviet control shortly after the war.Their fate was both predictable....and ,it seems to me highly avoidable had their been soem backbone showm by the postwar English Government. Still no tommie...what a shame. It was over for the British Government after WW2 - we didn't have a pot to piss in and we were totally sidelined by the Americans. That was just the way it was - I'm sure the British Government accepted that (mind you - didn't have a choice) - were the roles reversed they would have done exactly the same. The point is that the British didn't have the means at their disposal to start dictating what was going on in Poland and Russia. Do you realise that Britain declared war on Germany and then proceeded to position cardboard tanks in fields to try and convince German reconaissance that we had some sort of army and it wouldn't be a good idea to invade? Although the British were on the winning side in WW1 - it crippled the finances of the British Government and the rot set in from then. We didn't have a great deal of money and British power was rapidly diminishing - no longer were we in a position to dictate terms. And the other point you probably miss is this: Britain didn't have a history of meddling in other countries affairs just for the sake of it. There had to be something in it for us and that something was raw materials and markets - British policy was never like say German policy with wild notions of dominations - ours was commercial driven. Britain stayed out of many of the continental European wars - nothing for us to gain - and went in only when the balance of power on the continent was in danger of being tipped in the favour of one dominant power - which would have meant trouble for us. So we didn't have the means/the will/the tradition to start messing around in Poland/Russia. There seems to be a certain amount of romanticism attached to Churchill and his relationship with the United States. Do you know that the upper echelons of the US Army and Government didn't listen to pretty much a word he said during WW2? They totally sidelined him. Churchill didn't want the invasion to be in Northern France - he wanted it up through Italy - Americans not interested. The Americans had no use for British intelligence at all though Churchill pushed it no end. They thought a powerful army alone would do the trick - the British didn't. Problem was that the British had no money and needed American money to fund operations - which the Americans weren't prepared to give - until the British begged/borrowed/stole something from somewhere and undertook a few operations which proved successful and the Americans then gave the British some money to put into intelligence - and it's just as well for them that they did as it was British intelligence that convinced the Germans that D Day wasn't the main invasion and it was coming elsewhere which saved a lot of American/British/Aussie/Canadian lives etc.... But - anyway - the Americans of that day were no great lover of Churchill. So - the Americans didn't take a great deal of notice of Churchill when it mattered.

NorthernGent -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 7:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne yeh well its in the wise words of the constitutors that we should not make treaties more than we absolutely have to and I am still not satisfied that england has no interest in the us. Especially when the queen made changes to our social security back in 97. Thats part of parlimentary record. Combine that with most of our taxes being funneled out of the country and I do mean even property taxes. Then when you notice that most of our prezzies were brit origin there is a larger picture here than meets the nake d eye. I think you lack an understanding of the ruthlessness of your own government. The US government has ran this world for 80 years now - and despite claims that US power is diminishing - they will continue to run this world into the forseeable future. The reason why they have Britain as an ally - and the British understand that they will play second fiddle to a larger nation - is nothing to do with the Queen. It's a way of thinking - British and American philosophy and political philosophy is similar. What the French and Germans call the Anglo-Saxon way of doing things. And it all stems from the way we think rather than some misconceived notion that the Queen is phoning the White House and having Obama knock up a few bagels before personally delivering them to the Queen in time for morning tea.

Real0ne -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 7:54:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I think you lack an understanding of the ruthlessness of your own government. The US government has ran this world for 80 years now - and despite claims that US power is diminishing - they will continue to run this world into the forseeable future. The reason why they have Britain as an ally - and the British understand that they will play second fiddle to a larger nation - is nothing to do with the Queen. It's a way of thinking - British and American philosophy and political philosophy is similar. What the French and Germans call the Anglo-Saxon way of doing things. And it all stems from the way we think rather than some misconceived notion that the Queen is phoning the White House and having Obama knock up a few bagels before personally delivering them to the Queen in time for morning tea. I sure do know the ruthlessness of this government and yours. They are the same thing with different labels. I am not one of the fools who does not recognize that the feudal society of old england had more freedom than we as a general society do here today. This whole iraq and afghan thing is a UK US joint venture as is every war. Hell the king and the banksters financed both sides of the civil war and ww1 and ww2. In fact dubya's grandaddy got busted for it. Its really a small world consisting of only a couple entities. You have the aristocracy aka (the elite) who want to maintain power the military and the banksters and its all bout insuring no one gets to big to go up again the "gang". The problem is that it is so incredibly simple in its machinations that it escapes all those who ocnsider themselves sophiticated wherein they stand on the roots while counting the leaves.

servantforuse -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 7:56:25 PM)
Why is everyone so upset for what happened 60 years ago, but don't seem to care that Iran might soon have a nuke.??

slvemike4u -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 8:04:08 PM)
Servant what the fuck are you on about now.....could you possibly envision the possibility that one could care about both Iran having a nuke....and what happened to over 20,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest some 70 years ago? Or in your little world is one only allowed to think/care about one thing at a time?

Real0ne -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 8:06:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Why is everyone so upset for what happened 60 years ago, but don't seem to care that Iran might soon have a nuke.?? why should anyone care about iran? Hell all they have to do is pick up all those DU rounds we left all over iraq and they can have nough power to glow in the dark

NorthernGent -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 8:07:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Why is everyone so upset for what happened 60 years ago, but don't seem to care that Iran might soon have a nuke.?? Over here....I think people are really tired (and bored) of the threat and counter threat way of doing things. At some point people are just going to run out of steam with this whole seeing threats all over the world business and responding to them. Don't you find all this running round worrying about the intentions of say Iran or North Korea energy sapping? There must come a point where people say: "well.....fuck it...done enough worrying about threats here and there....let them have nukes and see what happens".

NorthernGent -> RE: Katyn Forest (4/9/2010 8:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Its really a small world consisting of only a couple entities. You have the aristocracy aka (the elite) who want to maintain power the military and the banksters and its all bout insuring no one gets to big to go up again the "gang". You may have a point Real0ne...but I reckon you're line of thought is struggling a bit in one area. The military and financiers are usually at odds when it comes to protracted wars. Financiers understand better than anyone that protracted wars will kill your economy through the dislocation of trade and credit. Put it this way - were you to get involved in a protracted war tomorrow - the military may want it - the financiers certainly will not.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875