Bakhmut about to fall.

a reply to: TheRedneck

To be fair to Hitler he was somewhat of a war hero having won the Iron Cross first and second class and also a wound medal after which he returned to the front lines. He might have been evil but by all accounts he was brave.

a reply to: Grenade

Sigh. If you say so. But calling folk who do not share your or your buddies views "cretins" does not amount to "reasonable discussion" in my book and I am sick and tired of the personal barbs getting thrown around on here.

So further "discussion" would appear to be only a sterile and forensic exercise, not to mention an increasingly unpleasant experience.

Let me know when Bakhmut falls so you can gloat about it.

Ah. I see that you are now praising Hitler's bravery.

Carry on.

.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I didn't, i called those who fit Rednecks description cretins. You're the one who identifies as someone who's entire goal is to push a narrative and sabotage threads through disruption.

You must be so proud of yourself.

Redneck stated that leaders don't fight in wars, Hitler did and won several medals for bravery. Again, your feelings appear to be blinkering you from truth. It seems facts don't sit well with you nor can you separate them from your emotions. Adolf Hitler was a war hero for Germany in the Great War, that's undeniable. I didn't praise Hitler, i stated a fact about his war record.

a reply to: Grenade

To be fair to Hitler he was somewhat of a war hero

Oh, he certainly was a war hero to Germany at the time... that's how he rose to power. He was also quite charismatic. The German people loved him.

None of which excuses the fact that he was a megalomaniac, a xenophobe, a war criminal, a sadist, and by some accounts criminally insane. But, truth is truth. Just be careful; some do get a little binary and that statement of fact could offend them.

Ah, I see I'm too late with that warning...


TheRedneck

a reply to: Grenade

There you go again.

I guess you win the internet.

Talk about thread drift!

To stay on topic, I'll give you a tip.

Try talking about Bakhmut rather than other posters

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Now that you've been beaten into submission you want to get back on topic.

Seems two can play the disruption and trolling game.

Only some of us are better than others.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Cutepants

Germany under Hitler was invaded. So was Hitler in the right as soon as his borders were invaded? Every war involves the breach of someone's border... sometimes justified, but more often not.

I don't see why having his borders invaded would suddenly change whether he was right or wrong? I'm not obsessed with de jure borders. Putin was already occupying Crimea and Donbass and I never said Ukraine should start a war just because of that. Because it wouldn't be worth it. In fact my opinion before 2022 was to give Russia the area they already occupied. I hoped that would be enough.

I also didn't say that actions shouldn't have consequences for the leaders. And if Hitler tried to make peace at some point when Germany itself was being invaded, should the allies have accepted that? It's worth thinking about. But probably not. In retrospect they made the right choice anyway.

Who is to blame does not matter to those who are fine with the war continuing. That information only matters to those who want to end the fighting.

That's a bold statement. I definitely care about it, if you're talking about people like me who don't want Ukraine to surrender and who want to continue aiding them. Are you saying I'm lying about that? Or maybe you meant it doesn't matter in some other sense.

If diplomacy is never used, the fighting will continue until one of the fighting countries is destroyed, or at least until neither country has the ability to fight any more. That's what happens, and that is what will happen this time. For there to ever be a diplomatic solution, the issues that led to the invasion(s) must be addressed. There is no other way to end a war.

I think it's safe to say diplomacy is currently being used in some form, will be used successfully at some point in the future, and this will happen long before either country is destroyed, although definitely a lot of damage will be done. But I disagree that the issues must be addressed before there can be a diplomatic solution. It just isn't always possible. And sometimes people's perceptions can even change, or leadership changes. Wars aren't based on reason. Or what seems reasonable at one time can seem foolish after some time, or vice versa.

The very fact that one country invaded another means that country had a reason to do so. It was no accident; they purposely invaded. That reason may be reasonable, or it may not be... but we will never know unless we ask what those reasons were. We have not asked Putin what his reasons were; we have tried to tell him why he invaded Ukraine. That's not how it works.

This sounds bizarre to me, because to me it seems that there's constantly dialogue going on at all levels, in the media and on twitter, meetings in the UN, Israel and Turkey and China trying to mediate, and so on.

What would asking Putin mean to you? How can we ask him more than has already been asked over the last eight years or twenty years?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah i though i'd leave out all the questionable character traits and bait my post with just enough to induce outrage.

a reply to: Grenade

What are you talking about? Oldcarpy's been talking about staying on topic since several pages back.

a reply to: Cutepants

Hitler offered peace to the Allies many times, remember it was Britain who declared war on Germany. More FACTS which will no doubt cause outrage.

"My chief endeavor has been to rid our relations with France of all trace of ill will... I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity... I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German friendship... To achieve this great end [of peace], the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm – in short, of peace... It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it..."

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well that sounds good to me. We just have very different ideas of what it means in practice I guess.

a reply to: Cutepants

We must be reading different threads. Count the number of times he's actually discussed the battle for Bakhmut since his entry to the thread and compare it to the BS thread drift attempts.

a reply to: Grenade

Yeah, I'm just asking myself whether the allies should have accepted or not.

a reply to: Cutepants

One does one's best.

But, like I say, what's the point?

Any reasonable discussion of the actual topic left the building a few pages ago.

I think that there is no strategic significance for Bakhmut other than Putin's willingness to throw meat at the grinder that it has become, in an attempt to claim some sort of victory after a year of his I'll advised War, with Ukraine using said grinder to degrade the Wagner group and drive a wedge between them and Putin.

a reply to: Grenade

I don't know, I never said he didn't talk off topic. I'm just saying you were wrong when you said he suddenly started calling to stay on topic. Please try not to misrepresent what I write in my posts.

a reply to: Grenade

Here was me thinking that baiting other folk was a bad thing on here?

"Yeah i though i'd leave out all the questionable character traits and bait my post with just enough to induce outrage."

a reply to: Cutepants

You can't change history. I do think Germany received a rough deal in the Treaty of Versailles. Some kind of compromise would certainly have delayed the war at least and anything to avoid that horrible portion of history would have been welcomed from me. Remember the first few countries Hitler invaded or annexed welcomed the troops with flowers, not bullets. Even the Allied nations had many fascists and politicians who admired the Nazis. Oswald Moseley is one name who springs to mind from this country. The royal family had some questionable connections as well.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I don't mind fighting fire with fire.

a reply to: Cutepants

Considering you interjected into my conversation with Carpy, one that precedes your entry into the thread, i suggest you do the same.

a reply to: Cutepants

Define suddenly? He's been sabotaging this thread and causing drift for many pages despite our best attempts to get back on topic. I only have so much patience.