You must log in or register to comment.
Are westerners capable of comprehending anything outside the framework their national WWII mythology and schoolboy comparisons? Does everything have to be literally 1939?
The two genders: 1939, 1981
Fucking Charlie Sykes
Still remember the time he tried to argue my brother should go to prison for doing graffitti
Almost got on air to cuss him out, but lost my shit a little early
Death to Charlie Sykes!
God, that was such a dumb way of writing “today”.
I spent some time trying to understand what people here are actually saying. Is Sykes saying that negotiating with Hamas is like negotiating with Hitler, and then Serge is saying that the logical implication is what Israel is currently doing, assassinating Hamas diplomats they don’t like while they continue with unrestrained genocide?
This one’s about the Ukraine war, and the upcoming Trump-Putin meeting
Although I guess this same style of rhetoric has also been used with regards to the Gaza genocide too (but I’m not sure if I’ve heard Chamberlain takes specifically, it’s been mostly about “Hamas terrorists” at least from what I’ve seen)… Westerners do be calling everyone Hitler while funneling arms to the guys actually carrying out mass slaughter in plain view.
Okay, it’s just my own fixations getting in the way. So is Serge talking about Ukraine’s attitude, saying that it refuses to engage diplomatically?
The current understanding is that Trump’s meeting with Putin on Friday will involve Trump trying to end the conflict by suggesting Russia annex the territory it’s managed to hold from Ukraine. Liberals in particular despise this idea and would prefer the war continue until Russia leaves eastern Ukraine, and even Crimea.
Liberals compare this to when Chamberlain met Hitler to discuss Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. The liberal worldview says that the UK attempted to prevent WW2 by allowing Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia, but then it didn’t work because Germany went to war anyway. Liberal believe Russia is trying to hatch a scheme to conquer all of Europe, despite literally no evidence for this, and that allowing Russia to annex eastern Ukraine won’t prevent…this hypothetical WW3 where Russia destroys all of Europe for some unknown reason.
Sykes is saying that negotiating with Russia right now is the same as Chamberlain meeting Hitler. The implication is that the Ukrainians/ NATO ought to fight to the bitter end, because this is literally Putler. Serge is mocking the logic of saying that negotiation is bad (because that’s famously how you enable Hitler), so instead we ought to fight to the bitter end no matter what (because that’s famously how Hitler decided to go out). Serge is mockingly taking Sykes at his word, and then ‘regretfully’ realizing that the actual conclusion is “We shouldn’t act like we’re helping Hitler, so instead we should act directly like him.”
Thank you for the help. I was having trouble because Hitler did strategically use diplomacy also, as seen in this very example, but I guess once he invaded Poland, that was basically done for.
“When the Zizians stabbed their landlord with a katana or got in a shootout with the cops, this was really actually because they believed an obscure version of decision theory that meant that you should always escalate when threatened.”
i’m probably stupid but is this a reference to Sykes–Picot Agreement ?
Nope, it’s just Hitler.
The Ukraine war has seen people wheel out the whole “any attempt to negotiate or otherwise diplomatically engage with Russia is just like pre-WW2 appeasement policy!” rhetoric. But if we’re going to be doing Nazi Germany analogies here, the country trying to fight to the bitter end, conscripting old men, throwing away manpower in ill-thought-out offensives and getting their troops repeatedly encircled… isn’t Russia.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Soviet Union for a long time unsuccessfully tried to secure an alliance with Britain and France, and they refused to commit to any defensive cooperation.
France did sign a mutual assistance treaty with the Soviet Union in 1935, but it was a completely worthless treaty because Britain and Italy had to approve of any action performed under it, and also France answered every Soviet request for mutual military plans with “ehh, we’ll get back to you.”
i believe it’s commonly understood that French PM Pierre Laval torpedoed the treaty on purpose because he himself was a fascist piece of shit, like an actual Nazi
Freakish take. The NAP with the Soviets occurred after UK, France and many other countries signed NAPs with Germany. Previously the Soviets pledged troops to Czechoslovakia and Poland against Germany but this deal was declined, largely because Poland aligned with Germany against Czechoslovakia
Previously the Soviets pledged troops to Czechoslovakia and Poland against Germany but this deal was declined, largely because Poland aligned with Germany against Czechoslovakia
Ooh can I get a source for this
I know that’s just Wikipedia, but it’s a good primer. In 1938 Poland annexed Zaolzie, of course the article defends Poland as to not present them as collaborators to the annexation of Czechoslovakia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Olza#Part_of_Poland_(1938–1939)
The Soviet Union was so hostile to Poland over Munich that there was a real prospect that war between the two states might break out quite separate from the wider conflict over Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Prime Minister, Molotov, denounced the Poles as "Hitler’s jackals
Fun quote. Honestly a lot of decent quotes from contemporaries in that section talking about how Poland was gladly partaking in imperialism with Hitler and legitimizing Germany’s actions.
Oh we wanted to become an imperial power, with Madagascar being the most serious ambition. https://polskieradio24.pl/artykul/2207321,madagaskar-i-ambicje-kolonialne-ii-rp-zobacz-infografike
Like lumalo said, but also Poland also went to war with Czechoslovakia during the interwar period (1919) over Tesin Silesia. You can find many bourgeois nationalist sources saying the Czechs were the aggressors here, however the fundamental issue is that Tesin Silesia was an important conduit for western weapons reaching Poland for the fight against the Red Army. Also Poland broke a previous agreement for dual custody of the area by starting federal elections in Tesin Silesia. Similarly, the Czech workers in the area were actively blockading the railway because they supported the Soviets and the Poles would have loved to stop that.
Regardless, Polish nationalism was very crazy in this period. They went to war with all of their neighbors, including against independent governments in Ukraine. I think that in itself is very telling.
I’m sure that some apologists say that, but even among liberal historians more serious than Conquest, there’s an understanding that there was an unwillingness on the part of Britain and friends to even explore making an antifascist alliance with the Soviets and others and crush Germany, which might have something to do with all the politicians and other public figures loudly proclaiming that the Nazis are a bulwark against communism.
wow maybe if there had been something called the Triple alliance negotiation where the Soviet Union proposed a security agreement with France and the UK in 1939, a month before the pact with Germany, maybe then the UK and France would have had more confidence in a hypothetical conflict with Germany
and maybe there wouldn’t have been a Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and maybe WW2 could have been prevented but who knows
They didn’t need to march against Germany immediately, but perhaps you might wonder why Britain and France didn’t immediately then say yes to an anti-nazi alliance.
Modern reading of Chamberlain’s appeasment policy
Modern reading by who?
Robert Conquest, famously modern historian.
Westoids and other flavors of Nazi apologist.
wow none of us knew that, thanks for regurgitating the same worthless lib shit we’ve all heard literally everywhere else
