Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

RageFuel movies always portray the smaller force (terrorists) as the good guys

Deleted member 126

Deleted member 126

cockroach
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
2,560
Normalfag logic: smaller force = heroic rebels, larger force = evil empire

reality: smaller force = terrorist scum, larger force = empire just serving their own people

Avatar, Braveheart, Star Wars ect are all trash movies that support terrorism. I would unironically join The Empire. They are just doing what is best for their own people. I am sick of globalist scum.
 
Wq4Qrx8
 
The real terroristpill is that normalscum would support the empire if they were in star wars because they believe whatever state/corporate media tells them. People are lemmings.
 
I like me a nice empire.
 
It depends on the situation. The rebels = good guys narrative works for movies set in WWII for instance.

inb4 poltards say that the Nazis were good
 
It depends on the situation. The rebels = good guys narrative works for movies set in WWII for instance.

inb4 poltards say that the Nazis were good
Not saying the Axis were hot shit but how were the allies any better than the Nazis?
 
Not saying the Axis were hot shit but how were the allies any better than the Nazis?

Seems like an obvious question. The allies did some heinous shit but they weren't for ethnic cleansing by means of genocide.
 
Normalfag logic: smaller force = heroic rebels, larger force = evil empire

reality: smaller force = terrorist scum, larger force = empire just serving their own people
What about judging both factions based on their morals, and not based on their size? This makes little sense. You claim to be sick of globalist scum, but IRL the larger force is usually led by globalist cucks.
And yes, i'd join the Empire too.
 
Seems like an obvious question. The allies did some heinous shit but they weren't for ethnic cleansing by means of genocide.
Yeah but why were the Jews ethnically cleansed?
And isn't expelling every German east of the Oder–Neisse line ethnic cleansing as well? What about Soviet treatment of Axis POWs, wasn't that about as bad as the Jews were treated in the death camps?
 
Empire wouldn't care if you're incel because with the helmet all look the same :feelsokman:
 
Yeah but why were the Jews ethnically cleansed?

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/

And isn't expelling every German east of the Oder–Neisse line ethnic cleansing as well?

Sure, but I hope that you're not implying that land was rightfully theirs. It's a little different when you are repelling an ethnicity from newly conquered land. Also note how I said "by means of genocide".

What about Soviet treatment of Axis POWs, wasn't that about as bad as the Jews were treated in the death camps?

The numbers are incomparable, and there seems to be a distinct lack civilians, including women andchildren in POW camps. I've already said that the allies aren't 100% innocent. You're failing to make your case that this isn't a faulty comparison.
 
Not answering my question, why were the Jews killed during WW2? What drove Germany to do something so atrocious?

Sure, but I hope that you're not implying that land was rightfully theirs. It's a little different when you are repelling an ethnicity from newly conquered land. Also note how I said "by means of genocide".

The numbers are incomparable, and there seems to be a distinct lack civilians, including women andchildren in POW camps. I've already said that the allies aren't 100% innocent. You're failing to make your case that this isn't a faulty comparison.
Well, after the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1, when Germany lost Danzig and the Polish corridor, the international community was fine with letting Wiemar Germany keep East Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia. These places were just as legitimately German in the eyes of the international community as Bavaria was. Millions of Germans lived there, and Germans had settled the area during the 12th century. East Prussia, Silesia and East Pommerania were inhabited mostly by Germans with some small Slavic minorities on their fringes, which is why these areas hadn't been given away to Poland after WW1. Were they legitimately German? The international community seemed to think so, the people living there seemed to think so and the pre-Nazi German regime seemed to think so. I'm not even talking about the places Germany tried to annex during their WW2 landgrab, I'm talking about places which were a part of Wiemar Germany before the Nazi regime and which had been inhabited primarily by Germans for more than 700 years, longer than Europeans have been in America.

When the Soviets entered these places during the final stages of WW2 they killed tens of thousands of men, women and children (disproportionately the elderly, women and children, as these people were not on the front lines). Sources on Wikipedia (hardly a pro-Nazi source) will tell you that Soviet soldiers killed tens of thousands of civilians, raped women and girls and left them to die and were generally pretty nasty to the civilians living there. A study published by the German government in 1989, estimated the death toll among German civilians in eastern Europe to be 635,000. With 270,000 dying as the result of Soviet war crimes, 160,000 deaths occurring at the hands of various nationalities during the expulsion of Germans after World War II and 205,000 deaths in the forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union. These figures do not include at least 125,000 civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin.

People were actually put in gulags for criticising this on the charges of "bourgeois humanism" and "sympathising with the enemy". You know that Solzhenitsyn guy Jordan Peterson (who is a clown, not promoting JP here) likes to go on about? He got put in a labour camp for suggesting that Stalin shouldn't have allowed the Red Army to rape and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

There is a book called Other Losses by Canadian writer and history graduate James Bacque which argues that the death of around a million German POWs from hunger and exposure in intermittent camps shortly after WW2 was intentional, and that Eisenhower was in on it. The book has been criticised, but the criticism has only revolved around how intentional the deaths really were and a significant body of academics came out in support of Bacque. I guess that's not as bad though because they weren't women and children though, right buddy? They didn't have vaginas and they weren't little kids. It's estimated that Western allied troops committed tens of thousands of rapes on the locals in Europe as well. Not as bad as the Soviets, but that's a million POWs (many of whom were conscripted into the Wehrmacht instead of the NSDAP-affiliated SS, and were thus dying for their country unwillingly and starved to death horribly in a camp because of it).

So yes, I think the USSR and to a lesser extent the USA doing Genghis Khan-tier bullshit on the people of Germany, including civilians and many men who probably didn't want to be conscripted in the first place is absolutely comparable to Germany's wartime atrocities against an ethnic group. Raping women and children, shooting them and leaving them to die in the hundreds of thousands is pretty comparable to sending a few million people to camps, killing them with gas and shooting them in the back of the head before pushing them into ditches.

Again though, seeing as you REALLY want to avoid the question, why would Germany do such a horrible thing to the Jews?
 
Last edited:
Not answering my question, why were the Jews killed during WW2? What drove Germany to do something so atrocious?


Well, after the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1, when Germany lost Danzig and the Polish corridor, the international community was fine with letting Wiemar Germany keep East Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia. These places were just as legitimately German in the eyes of the international community as Bavaria was. Millions of Germans lived there, and Germans had settled the area during the 12th century. East Prussia, Silesia and East Pommerania were inhabited mostly by Germans with some small Slavic minorities on their fringes, which is why these areas hadn't been given away to Poland after WW1. Were they legitimately German? The international community seemed to think so, the people living there seemed to think so and the pre-Nazi German regime seemed to think so. I'm not even talking about the places Germany tried to annex during their WW2 landgrab, I'm talking about places which were a part of Wiemar Germany before the Nazi regime and which had been inhabited primarily by Germans for more than 700 years, longer than Europeans have been in America.

When the Soviets entered these places during the final stages of WW2 they killed tens of thousands of men, women and children (disproportionately the elderly, women and children, as these people were not on the front lines). Sources on Wikipedia (hardly a pro-Nazi source) will tell you that Soviet soldiers killed tens of thousands of civilians, raped women and girls and left them to die and were generally pretty nasty to the civilians living there. A study published by the German government in 1989, estimated the death toll among German civilians in eastern Europe to be 635,000. With 270,000 dying as the result of Soviet war crimes, 160,000 deaths occurring at the hands of various nationalities during the expulsion of Germans after World War II and 205,000 deaths in the forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union. These figures do not include at least 125,000 civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin.

People were actually put in gulags for criticising this on the charges of "bourgeois humanism" and "sympathising with the enemy". You know that Solzhenitsyn guy Jordan Peterson (who is a clown, not promoting JP here) likes to go on about? He got put in a labour camp for suggesting that Stalin shouldn't have allowed the Red Army to rape and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

There is a book called Other Losses by Canadian writer and history graduate James Bacque which argues that the death of around a million German POWs from hunger and exposure in intermittent camps shortly after WW2 was intentional, and that Eisenhower was in on it. The book has been criticised, but the criticism has only revolved around how intentional the deaths really were and a significant body of academics came out in support of Bacque. I guess that's not as bad though because they weren't women and children though, right buddy? They didn't have vaginas and they weren't little kids. It's estimated that Western allied troops committed tens of thousands of rapes on the locals in Europe as well. Not as bad as the Soviets, but that's a million POWs (many of whom were conscripted into the Wehrmacht instead of the NSDAP-affiliated SS, and were thus dying for their country unwillingly and starved to death horribly in a camp because of it).

So yes, I think the USSR and to a lesser extent the USA doing Genghis Khan-tier bullshit on the people of Germany, including civilians and many men who probably didn't want to be conscripted in the first place is absolutely comparable to Germany's wartime atrocities against an ethnic group. Raping women and children, shooting them and leaving them to die in the hundreds of thousands is pretty comparable to sending a few million people to camps, killing them with gas and shooting them in the back of the head before pushing them into ditches.

Again though, seeing as you REALLY want to avoid the question, why would Germany do such a horrible thing to the Jews?

jfl when people think nazis are the bad guys when USSR was basically the most evil regime for 70 years straight
 
Not answering my question, why were the Jews killed during WW2? What drove Germany to do something so atrocious?


Well, after the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1, when Germany lost Danzig and the Polish corridor, the international community was fine with letting Wiemar Germany keep East Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia. These places were just as legitimately German in the eyes of the international community as Bavaria was. Millions of Germans lived there, and Germans had settled the area during the 12th century. East Prussia, Silesia and East Pommerania were inhabited mostly by Germans with some small Slavic minorities on their fringes, which is why these areas hadn't been given away to Poland after WW1. Were they legitimately German? The international community seemed to think so, the people living there seemed to think so and the pre-Nazi German regime seemed to think so. I'm not even talking about the places Germany tried to annex during their WW2 landgrab, I'm talking about places which were a part of Wiemar Germany before the Nazi regime and which had been inhabited primarily by Germans for more than 700 years, longer than Europeans have been in America.


I'll concede the point that the Germans unrightfully lost the piece of land landlocked by Poland, I honestly forgot about it. However, my original point still stands. There was no ethnic cleansing by means of genocide. Please keep in mind that I'm talking about a matter of degree, refusing to reimburse a strip of land after a conflict is incomparable to wiping out cities full of Jews.

When the Soviets entered these places during the final stages of WW2 they killed tens of thousands of men, women and children (disproportionately the elderly, women and children, as these people were not on the front lines). Sources on Wikipedia (hardly a pro-Nazi source) will tell you that Soviet soldiers killed tens of thousands of civilians, raped women and girls and left them to die and were generally pretty nasty to the civilians living there. A study published by the German government in 1989, estimated the death toll among German civilians in eastern Europe to be 635,000. With 270,000 dying as the result of Soviet war crimes, 160,000 deaths occurring at the hands of various nationalities during the expulsion of Germans after World War II and 205,000 deaths in the forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union. These figures do not include at least 125,000 civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin.

I am aware of this. I'm surprised that you haven't mentioned the Dresden bombings. Slaughterhouse Five is a hell of a read.

People were actually put in gulags for criticising this on the charges of "bourgeois humanism" and "sympathising with the enemy". You know that Solzhenitsyn guy Jordan Peterson (who is a clown, not promoting JP here) likes to go on about? He got put in a labour camp for suggesting that Stalin shouldn't have allowed the Red Army to rape and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

No need to sell me on the fact that Soviet Russia was bad.

There is a book called Other Losses by Canadian writer and history graduate James Bacque which argues that the death of around a million German POWs from hunger and exposure in intermittent camps shortly after WW2 was intentional, and that Eisenhower was in on it. The book has been criticised, but the criticism has only revolved around how intentional the deaths really were and a significant body of academics came out in support of Bacque. I guess that's not as bad though because they weren't women and children though, right buddy? They didn't have vaginas and they weren't little kids. It's estimated that Western allied troops committed tens of thousands of rapes on the locals in Europe as well. Not as bad as the Soviets, but that's a million POWs (many of whom were conscripted into the Wehrmacht instead of the NSDAP-affiliated SS, and were thus dying for their country unwillingly and starved to death horribly in a camp because of it).

I admit that the women and children thing was a attempt at an appeal to emotion but I forgot where I was. Other than that, I agree with you on this point, and I lend credence to "clear Wehrmacht". Again, no need to sell me on the fact that mistreating POWs is bad, I actually praise Rommel for doing the opposite.

So yes, I think the USSR and to a lesser extent the USA doing Genghis Khan-tier bullshit on the people of Germany, including civilians and many men who probably didn't want to be conscripted in the first place is absolutely comparable to Germany's wartime atrocities against an ethnic group. Raping women and children, shooting them and leaving them to die in the hundreds of thousands is pretty comparable to sending a few million people to camps, killing them with gas and shooting them in the back of the head before pushing them into ditches.

I agree with the validity of your points leading up to your thesis. However it's the thesis itself that is wrong. The numbers just aren't comparable (you even say "hundreds of thousands" when referring to German citizens, but then "few million" when referring to the holocaust) . Not to mention that a state-wide effort to exterminate Jews and "undesirables" across Europe is a lot more heinous than war crimes against POWs and citizens that have been overlooked by people in authority. I believe that your original statement was "
but how were the allies any better than the Nazis?", which is stark raving mad.

You also seemed to have moved the goalposts a bit, which is something that I am also at fault for not recognizing sooner. I specifically stated "the rebels" is my first post (#6). I was referring to resistance fighters, such as those found in Poland and France. I am aware that the allies aren't morally white, hence why I didn't mention WWII as a whole.

Again though, seeing as you REALLY want to avoid the question, why would Germany do such a horrible thing to the Jews?

I was just confused by the intent of your question, it seemed like this was a way to justify the Holocaust. If it makes you happy, Germany wanted to exterminated the Jews because they felt as if they were usurping their economy. Excuse the rushed nature of this, I have to get to class.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top