By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 17:47 - Jul 27 by shingle
Well if you thought the Nazi`s were bad enough have a read of the book Barbarossa by Jonathan Trigg for just one example on what a disgusting type of race and people the Russians are, it is a shame Hitler fcucked everything up and did not leave matters to his generals when they were on the brink of beating Russia as the Americans would have soon beaten the Germans soon after and then liberated the Soviet union but would no doubt have put measures in to keep them suppressed and not allowing them from ever becoming a superpower.
That seems a bizarre post to me. If Hitler had beaten Russia, first of all they would have had access to massive resources. Then they would possibly have sent the majority of those armies back to the West, that may have meant 2 million men as well as hundreds of tanks. Even if they only sent a third of the Barbarossa troops West it's still a million, imagine a million more nazi's on the French coast for D Day.
Then, not having to worry about Russia and being so strong in France that D day may not happen Germany's "Super weapon" programme would have been full steam ahead. Those jet aircraft, those long range missiles and god forbid, nuclear weapons.
Britain wouldn't have needed invading, Hitler could have pulverised us with V1 and V2 missiles, we would probably have had to surrender. That would mean no staging post for US forces.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 18:32 - Jul 27 by controversial_jack
You have no grasp whatsoever of History. Yes, Hitler messed up and maybe could have defeated the red army, but history shows he didn't.
The US could never have defeated a full strength Germany. Whenever the Germans and allies clashed in equal numbers, the Germans always prevailed. German troops were better trained, better motivated, more resilient and tougher.
The Allies faced far lesser German forces in the west than the Russians did in the east.It was the red army that did most of the damage, and they suffered most because of it.
What the NAZIs did in Russia was far far worse than anything the Red army did in Germany - although, they weren't exactly saints.
Hitler had plans to starve to death 13 million Russians with his planes for lebensraum.
You need to take another look at the history of ww2
Your obsessive love of the Russions is making you look a fool of vast proportions you do realise the Russions staved and suppressed millions of there own people even before world war 2 started but things do tend to sail over here head quite easily looking at your previous posts on this matter.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 08:02 - Jul 28 with 1226 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 18:33 - Jul 27 by Catullus
That seems a bizarre post to me. If Hitler had beaten Russia, first of all they would have had access to massive resources. Then they would possibly have sent the majority of those armies back to the West, that may have meant 2 million men as well as hundreds of tanks. Even if they only sent a third of the Barbarossa troops West it's still a million, imagine a million more nazi's on the French coast for D Day.
Then, not having to worry about Russia and being so strong in France that D day may not happen Germany's "Super weapon" programme would have been full steam ahead. Those jet aircraft, those long range missiles and god forbid, nuclear weapons.
Britain wouldn't have needed invading, Hitler could have pulverised us with V1 and V2 missiles, we would probably have had to surrender. That would mean no staging post for US forces.
Be very careful what you wish for.
The Germans were already finished even if they had beaten the Russians more than half of the Wermacht had been wiped out they no longer had the manpower or resources to even put in place any ways of reaping any rewards from defeating the Russions they could not even call on any replacements because there were not any to call on, there factories were empty and there country already finished with no resources whatsoever and as I say it would have only been a matter of time before the Americans would have finished them off and liberated the Soviet Union maybe you should read the biographies of Churchill and Truman to educate yourself on this Trueman especially explains all this in great detail.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 10:03 - Jul 28 with 1202 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 08:02 - Jul 28 by shingle
The Germans were already finished even if they had beaten the Russians more than half of the Wermacht had been wiped out they no longer had the manpower or resources to even put in place any ways of reaping any rewards from defeating the Russions they could not even call on any replacements because there were not any to call on, there factories were empty and there country already finished with no resources whatsoever and as I say it would have only been a matter of time before the Americans would have finished them off and liberated the Soviet Union maybe you should read the biographies of Churchill and Truman to educate yourself on this Trueman especially explains all this in great detail.
Are you on some kind of substance?
Americans liberated the Soviet union? That would suggest that Germany has defeated the Russians in the first place.
If that had happened, the Germans could have released many divisions to fight in the west. There would have been your replacements.
The allies struggled to eventually wear down the German units in the west, they would not have done it if additional German units were in the West.
Eisenhower called a halt to the Allies advance further east as he knew they would have eventuality had yo confront the red army, and that was on a roll at the time. Eisenhower didn't even tell Churchill at the time, and Churchill was furious Churchill was wrong on many occasions during ww2
American troops lost every time they came up against similar German troops, so did the British and Canadians.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 10:17 - Jul 28 with 1202 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 10:03 - Jul 28 by controversial_jack
Are you on some kind of substance?
Americans liberated the Soviet union? That would suggest that Germany has defeated the Russians in the first place.
If that had happened, the Germans could have released many divisions to fight in the west. There would have been your replacements.
The allies struggled to eventually wear down the German units in the west, they would not have done it if additional German units were in the West.
Eisenhower called a halt to the Allies advance further east as he knew they would have eventuality had yo confront the red army, and that was on a roll at the time. Eisenhower didn't even tell Churchill at the time, and Churchill was furious Churchill was wrong on many occasions during ww2
American troops lost every time they came up against similar German troops, so did the British and Canadians.
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 16:16 - Jul 28 with 1160 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 10:03 - Jul 28 by controversial_jack
Are you on some kind of substance?
Americans liberated the Soviet union? That would suggest that Germany has defeated the Russians in the first place.
If that had happened, the Germans could have released many divisions to fight in the west. There would have been your replacements.
The allies struggled to eventually wear down the German units in the west, they would not have done it if additional German units were in the West.
Eisenhower called a halt to the Allies advance further east as he knew they would have eventuality had yo confront the red army, and that was on a roll at the time. Eisenhower didn't even tell Churchill at the time, and Churchill was furious Churchill was wrong on many occasions during ww2
American troops lost every time they came up against similar German troops, so did the British and Canadians.
Oh ay, what about the battle of the Bulge, where American troops held up the German offensive, despite being vastly outnumbered in men and armoured vehicles, which they stopped dead in its tracks? You certainly have an anti west agenda comrade and when it comes to history I wouldn’t have you in my quiz team.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 10:03 - Jul 28 by controversial_jack
Are you on some kind of substance?
Americans liberated the Soviet union? That would suggest that Germany has defeated the Russians in the first place.
If that had happened, the Germans could have released many divisions to fight in the west. There would have been your replacements.
The allies struggled to eventually wear down the German units in the west, they would not have done it if additional German units were in the West.
Eisenhower called a halt to the Allies advance further east as he knew they would have eventuality had yo confront the red army, and that was on a roll at the time. Eisenhower didn't even tell Churchill at the time, and Churchill was furious Churchill was wrong on many occasions during ww2
American troops lost every time they came up against similar German troops, so did the British and Canadians.
Take your time and read the post more carefully i know you get overly excited but you need to try and slow down here i clearly say if the Germans had defeated the Russians the Americans with there vast resources would then have liberated the Soviet union once they had defeated the Germans which most certainly would have been the eventual outcome.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 18:45 - Jul 28 with 1114 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 17:21 - Jul 28 by shingle
Take your time and read the post more carefully i know you get overly excited but you need to try and slow down here i clearly say if the Germans had defeated the Russians the Americans with there vast resources would then have liberated the Soviet union once they had defeated the Germans which most certainly would have been the eventual outcome.
The Americans would not have been ablè to defeat the Germans without the red army. The Red army killed many times more than the western allies did.
If Germany would have conquered Russia , they would have had the Russian resourced
The reason Hitler turned east, was to defeat Russia first before the Americans entered the war. Hitler did this, but fortunately Russia defeated them
You haven't thought this through.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 19:35 - Jul 28 with 1093 views
72.6% are not offended. Of the 27.4% who are offended 11.5% say that freedom of speech is important and people whose views 'offend' them should not be shut down.
That leaves 16% who want to shut down other people's right to express themselves.
Or in other words, for every 20 posters, only 3 want to shut down their fellow posters...
Yet in our society today (if this poll were to be indicative of the general populace...it's only 1 poll on a football forum after all) the 17 allow the 3 to have the whip hand and, in essence, control what can be discussed and who must be silenced.
The 3 are skating on thin ice, they just don't know it.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 22:47 - Jul 28 by Kerouac
I find the pie chart extremely interesting.
72.6% are not offended. Of the 27.4% who are offended 11.5% say that freedom of speech is important and people whose views 'offend' them should not be shut down.
That leaves 16% who want to shut down other people's right to express themselves.
Or in other words, for every 20 posters, only 3 want to shut down their fellow posters...
Yet in our society today (if this poll were to be indicative of the general populace...it's only 1 poll on a football forum after all) the 17 allow the 3 to have the whip hand and, in essence, control what can be discussed and who must be silenced.
The 3 are skating on thin ice, they just don't know it.
You forgot to add ,on this particular subject
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 03:22 - Jul 29 with 1003 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 22:47 - Jul 28 by Kerouac
I find the pie chart extremely interesting.
72.6% are not offended. Of the 27.4% who are offended 11.5% say that freedom of speech is important and people whose views 'offend' them should not be shut down.
That leaves 16% who want to shut down other people's right to express themselves.
Or in other words, for every 20 posters, only 3 want to shut down their fellow posters...
Yet in our society today (if this poll were to be indicative of the general populace...it's only 1 poll on a football forum after all) the 17 allow the 3 to have the whip hand and, in essence, control what can be discussed and who must be silenced.
The 3 are skating on thin ice, they just don't know it.
Fighting for the right for a few idiots to spread the Kremlin's propaganda and deny the Kremlin's war crimes in a football forum. Hero.
I'll repeat, I'm not offended by it. I'm angered that these people exist within our society and I'm angry that they are being allowed to do the above as fans of Swans FC on a Swans forum. All the while Russia continues to commit the most brutal of war crimes. Crimes which affect some of us fairly personally/those we know.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 03:56 - Jul 29 with 991 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 10:03 - Jul 28 by controversial_jack
Are you on some kind of substance?
Americans liberated the Soviet union? That would suggest that Germany has defeated the Russians in the first place.
If that had happened, the Germans could have released many divisions to fight in the west. There would have been your replacements.
The allies struggled to eventually wear down the German units in the west, they would not have done it if additional German units were in the West.
Eisenhower called a halt to the Allies advance further east as he knew they would have eventuality had yo confront the red army, and that was on a roll at the time. Eisenhower didn't even tell Churchill at the time, and Churchill was furious Churchill was wrong on many occasions during ww2
American troops lost every time they came up against similar German troops, so did the British and Canadians.
Your last line is complete rubbish. The elite German military was fantastically equipped and even better trained, but to suggest they were unbeatable by similar standard allied troops is tosh and a bit of an insult to anyone who served.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 08:50 - Jul 29 with 932 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 03:22 - Jul 29 by deanscfc
Fighting for the right for a few idiots to spread the Kremlin's propaganda and deny the Kremlin's war crimes in a football forum. Hero.
I'll repeat, I'm not offended by it. I'm angered that these people exist within our society and I'm angry that they are being allowed to do the above as fans of Swans FC on a Swans forum. All the while Russia continues to commit the most brutal of war crimes. Crimes which affect some of us fairly personally/those we know.
Were you angered by those who opposed the 2nd Iraq war? Should the 'stop the war' protests have been banned?
After all, a country was invaded for no discernible reason, our government (Tony Blair & co.) lied to us about the justification for the war. Did people have the right to argue the opposite? If not why not.
Don't you understand that there are people out there who are angry that people like you exist within our society? Tens of millions, maybe more than a hundred million people have been murdered in the last century in the name of Socialism. Hundreds of millions of people were forced to live in abject misery, a state of impoverishment, their freedoms curtailed, secret police forces, thought crimes, re-education camps, families broken apart, property stolen, walls built around the country to keep people in (rather than out). By your logic people like you are defending crimes, promoting the propaganda of an evil ideology and should be called out for this and stopped from spreading your ideas on football forums.
It is called tolerance. Tolerance and freedom of speech are values our culture has always stood for, it defines us. This intolerance by people like you is what is new and it is nasty.
Make arguments that appeal to reason, not emotion, if you want intelligent people to take your argument seriously.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 08:50 - Jul 29 by Kerouac
Were you angered by those who opposed the 2nd Iraq war? Should the 'stop the war' protests have been banned?
After all, a country was invaded for no discernible reason, our government (Tony Blair & co.) lied to us about the justification for the war. Did people have the right to argue the opposite? If not why not.
Don't you understand that there are people out there who are angry that people like you exist within our society? Tens of millions, maybe more than a hundred million people have been murdered in the last century in the name of Socialism. Hundreds of millions of people were forced to live in abject misery, a state of impoverishment, their freedoms curtailed, secret police forces, thought crimes, re-education camps, families broken apart, property stolen, walls built around the country to keep people in (rather than out). By your logic people like you are defending crimes, promoting the propaganda of an evil ideology and should be called out for this and stopped from spreading your ideas on football forums.
It is called tolerance. Tolerance and freedom of speech are values our culture has always stood for, it defines us. This intolerance by people like you is what is new and it is nasty.
Make arguments that appeal to reason, not emotion, if you want intelligent people to take your argument seriously.
What's your level of tolerance?
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 10:41 - Jul 29 with 909 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 08:02 - Jul 28 by shingle
The Germans were already finished even if they had beaten the Russians more than half of the Wermacht had been wiped out they no longer had the manpower or resources to even put in place any ways of reaping any rewards from defeating the Russions they could not even call on any replacements because there were not any to call on, there factories were empty and there country already finished with no resources whatsoever and as I say it would have only been a matter of time before the Americans would have finished them off and liberated the Soviet Union maybe you should read the biographies of Churchill and Truman to educate yourself on this Trueman especially explains all this in great detail.
If Germany had beaten Russia they then had access to vast resources. If they had beaten the Russians then they wouldn't have lost so many men because a huge number were killed or taken prisoner as the Russians counter attacked and pressed on.
if Germany had beaten Russia and could have sent more troops West then D Day WOULD have gone very differently and lastly, if Hitler had just a little more time, maybe as little as another 6 months before Germany was breached, he may have had the worlds first nuclear capability. The biggest thing that held Germany back in the nukes department was that Germany had divided it's research into different, competitive groups. If they had pooled resources it may have been very different. In the USA they pooled all their research into the "Manhattan Project" it was collaborative and it succeeded. For Germany it was just another poor decision, one of many that contributed to their final defeat. What Trueman and Churchill penned was maybe their honest opinion but they don't have all the information we have today.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 09:45 - Jul 29 by Boundy
What's your level of tolerance?
I will tolerate all as far as is possible, I draw the line (...and it is tricky) at the intolerant.
Obviously if you allow the growth of intolerance, some even encourage the rise of intolerance, then at some point you will no longer have a free, tolerant, society.
Nobody wants to live in those societies, immigrants to the UK are predominantly those who are running away from intolerance (whether that be the tyranny of the Left or the tyranny of Islam, or the tyranny of a despot from another tribe) towards freedom.
If you shut down speech, you shit down debate and the market of ideas. If you do that you destroy and stifle, restrict, dehumanise and guarantee that life will get worse. That is the biggest lesson from History.
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 11:27 - Jul 29 by Kerouac
I will tolerate all as far as is possible, I draw the line (...and it is tricky) at the intolerant.
Obviously if you allow the growth of intolerance, some even encourage the rise of intolerance, then at some point you will no longer have a free, tolerant, society.
Nobody wants to live in those societies, immigrants to the UK are predominantly those who are running away from intolerance (whether that be the tyranny of the Left or the tyranny of Islam, or the tyranny of a despot from another tribe) towards freedom.
If you shut down speech, you shit down debate and the market of ideas. If you do that you destroy and stifle, restrict, dehumanise and guarantee that life will get worse. That is the biggest lesson from History.
Maybe others have a less tolerant attitude due to a personal connection to a specific subject such a Dean has on this particular topic .Why should should someone for example spout hate speech without consequences , there should be so does that make me intolerant
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
1
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 13:16 - Jul 29 with 869 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 07:45 - Jul 28 by shingle
Your obsessive love of the Russions is making you look a fool of vast proportions you do realise the Russions staved and suppressed millions of there own people even before world war 2 started but things do tend to sail over here head quite easily looking at your previous posts on this matter.
I'll email James Holland and Max Hastings that you think they are wrong.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 13:19 - Jul 29 with 867 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 03:56 - Jul 29 by Treforys_Jack
Your last line is complete rubbish. The elite German military was fantastically equipped and even better trained, but to suggest they were unbeatable by similar standard allied troops is tosh and a bit of an insult to anyone who served.
I get that, but the Americans and British troops were not to the same standard, not even close.
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 13:38 - Jul 29 with 861 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 08:50 - Jul 29 by Kerouac
Were you angered by those who opposed the 2nd Iraq war? Should the 'stop the war' protests have been banned?
After all, a country was invaded for no discernible reason, our government (Tony Blair & co.) lied to us about the justification for the war. Did people have the right to argue the opposite? If not why not.
Don't you understand that there are people out there who are angry that people like you exist within our society? Tens of millions, maybe more than a hundred million people have been murdered in the last century in the name of Socialism. Hundreds of millions of people were forced to live in abject misery, a state of impoverishment, their freedoms curtailed, secret police forces, thought crimes, re-education camps, families broken apart, property stolen, walls built around the country to keep people in (rather than out). By your logic people like you are defending crimes, promoting the propaganda of an evil ideology and should be called out for this and stopped from spreading your ideas on football forums.
It is called tolerance. Tolerance and freedom of speech are values our culture has always stood for, it defines us. This intolerance by people like you is what is new and it is nasty.
Make arguments that appeal to reason, not emotion, if you want intelligent people to take your argument seriously.
I genuinely have no idea what your post means/is asking.
I'm speaking about people who are quite clearly deliberately spreading Kremlin propaganda which we KNOW is untrue. I.e. we have a few individuals denying that Russian invasions took place and that mass war crimes (celebrated by Russians and rewarded by its government) happened. War crimes where the evidence is clear and overwhelming. Where official reports have been conducted, where victim, witness and medical reports are recorded, where satellite and aerial footage exists, where video evidence exists, where some of the video evidence is literally shared and celebrated by Russians, where Russians on state TV openly joke about and celebrate their evil methods. We have individuals who justify Russia's actions (the ones they admit to - i.e. not the war crimes mentioned above) by reciting slurs against Ukraine which have been disproved with official numbers.
None of this is OK or a 'ah it's just their opinion'. This is the equivalent of people openly supporting Hitler's army in WW2 and knowing that it is commiting atrocities but deliverately lying about it. Information has been a weapon of Russia's war efforts and here we have a few using it on this Swans forum. Again, not ok in any way and I can only hope that people who think it is OK haven't been following what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Maybe you and they could watch the video of the Ukrainian soldier being tortured and castrated, or the video of a Ukrainian soldiers decapitated head and hands on a stick, or read the reports released in the last hour that a load more Ukrainian POWs have just been massacred. Better still..maybe you and they could take a trip out to Ukraine and speak to those in Bucha, Irpin etc etc.
I guess it won't be long before people are arguing that it's fine to be openly racist (and other things) on this forum too. Tolerance of individuals who just happen to share that 'opinion'.
[Post edited 29 Jul 2022 14:01]
0
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 13:45 - Jul 29 with 857 views
Offended by what Brynmill J and Controversial J post on the Ukraine thread? on 13:38 - Jul 29 by deanscfc
I genuinely have no idea what your post means/is asking.
I'm speaking about people who are quite clearly deliberately spreading Kremlin propaganda which we KNOW is untrue. I.e. we have a few individuals denying that Russian invasions took place and that mass war crimes (celebrated by Russians and rewarded by its government) happened. War crimes where the evidence is clear and overwhelming. Where official reports have been conducted, where victim, witness and medical reports are recorded, where satellite and aerial footage exists, where video evidence exists, where some of the video evidence is literally shared and celebrated by Russians, where Russians on state TV openly joke about and celebrate their evil methods. We have individuals who justify Russia's actions (the ones they admit to - i.e. not the war crimes mentioned above) by reciting slurs against Ukraine which have been disproved with official numbers.
None of this is OK or a 'ah it's just their opinion'. This is the equivalent of people openly supporting Hitler's army in WW2 and knowing that it is commiting atrocities but deliverately lying about it. Information has been a weapon of Russia's war efforts and here we have a few using it on this Swans forum. Again, not ok in any way and I can only hope that people who think it is OK haven't been following what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Maybe you and they could watch the video of the Ukrainian soldier being tortured and castrated, or the video of a Ukrainian soldiers decapitated head and hands on a stick, or read the reports released in the last hour that a load more Ukrainian POWs have just been massacred. Better still..maybe you and they could take a trip out to Ukraine and speak to those in Bucha, Irpin etc etc.
I guess it won't be long before people are arguing that it's fine to be openly racist (and other things) on this forum too. Tolerance of individuals who just happen to share that 'opinion'.
[Post edited 29 Jul 2022 14:01]
and to make matters worse,slag off our Soldiers and what they do. As I keep saying,if the likes of contro dont like it,move to Moscow,or St Petes.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
