|
|
Post by galton on Jan 30, 2006 2:46:27 GMT -5
By the way, do you consider me a Marxist? You'll be less confused after you answer that question. Are you a Marxist? If so, why? |
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 30, 2006 11:23:39 GMT -5
By the way, do you consider me a Marxist? You'll be less confused after you answer that question. Are you a Marxist? If so, why?   |
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Jan 30, 2006 11:28:34 GMT -5
Inflammatory and propagandizing posters...wow...so educational...
|
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 30, 2006 12:58:42 GMT -5
Inflammatory and propagandizing posters...wow...so educational... The first was a poster used by Russians patriots appealing to other Russians to fight against the Bolshevik murderous revolutionaries in defense of Russia. The Bolsheviks being a small group of nationless nation hater's that wanted to make an international mono world under their demented yoke. Russian patriots are of course Russians . Second was used by Germans, after the crimes of Bolshevism had become perfectly clear. Crimes which, among many others, Volga Germans paid dearly for. In a context of tens of thousands intentionally starved and many more thousands executed by the Jewish NKVD. Both had every right to make the "inflammatory" posters. |
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 30, 2006 13:50:16 GMT -5
I bet Dukey got this poster hanging over his bed  And he gently kisses Hitler every night (or day) before going to sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 30, 2006 13:51:04 GMT -5
Inflammatory and propagandizing posters...wow...so educational... The first was a poster used by Russians patriots appealing to other Russians to fight against the Bolshevik murderous revolutionaries in defense of Russia. The Bolsheviks being a small group of nationless nation hater's that wanted to make an international mono world under their demented yoke. Russian patriots are of course Russians . Second was used by Germans, after the crimes of Bolshevism had become perfectly clear. Crimes which, among many others, Volga Germans paid dearly for. In a context of tens of thousands intentionally starved and many more thousands executed by the Jewish NKVD. Both had every right to make the "inflammatory" posters. Tell me, who was fighting in the Red Army and who was fighting in the White Army? |
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 30, 2006 14:06:23 GMT -5
By the way, do you consider me a Marxist? You'll be less confused after you answer that question. Are you a Marxist? If so, why? At this point, the only person being disingenuous is you. Are you really that dumb or do you just pretend to be? |
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 30, 2006 19:46:19 GMT -5
The first was a poster used by Russians patriots appealing to other Russians to fight against the Bolshevik murderous revolutionaries in defense of Russia. The Bolsheviks being a small group of nationless nation hater's that wanted to make an international mono world under their demented yoke. Russian patriots are of course Russians . Second was used by Germans, after the crimes of Bolshevism had become perfectly clear. Crimes which, among many others, Volga Germans paid dearly for. In a context of tens of thousands intentionally starved and many more thousands executed by the Jewish NKVD. Both had every right to make the "inflammatory" posters. Tell me, who was fighting in the Red Army and who was fighting in the White Army? -naive and easily manipulated Russian noahides. Whom by the way weren't even all that numerous. -Russians P.s. I'd much rather have a poster commemorating the slain Czar and his family. No doubt you have a shrine devoted to this "chosen" person.  |
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 30, 2006 22:27:49 GMT -5
Tell me, who was fighting in the Red Army and who was fighting in the White Army? -naive and easily manipulated Russian noahides. Whom by the way weren't even all that numerous. -Russians Right answer: Reds - 3,000,000 soldiers which went up to 5,000,000 by 1921; supported by the peasants; all in all, Russian people; Whites - never had more than 250,000 soldiers; hodge-podge collection made up of remnants of the Tsar's Army (those who haven't defected and joined Reds); monarchists; supported by foreign forces ((Japanese, British, Canadian, French, American) |
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 30, 2006 23:52:26 GMT -5
-naive and easily manipulated Russian noahides. Whom by the way weren't even all that numerous. -Russians Right answer: Reds - 3,000,000 soldiers which went up to 5,000,000 by 1921; supported by the peasants; all in all, Russian people; Whites - never had more than 250,000 soldiers; hodge-podge collection made up of remnants of the Tsar's Army (those who haven't defected and joined Reds); monarchists; supported by foreign forces ((Japanese, British, Canadian, French, American) Bolsheviks took power before the civil war pal-o. Which started only because the Bolsheviks were blashphemic. No doubt, there wasn't overflowing enthusiasm of men to take arms against them, even if they opposed them and their ideology. It's not to be expected from people that had to live in a diseased trench for years. Certainly that wouldn't have made them to fond of the czar either. Which is the story of WW1: All nations involved were willing to compromise, some with much social chaos, more than others. And who was there to exploit the bloody and disillusioned nations of Europe? Godless and nationless jews, that wanted to destroy the proud nations of Europe and turn the planet into some disgusting "workers paradise" as dictated by another godless European hating Jew. Communism was never a peoples movement, they merely slipped through the back door of the most likely European candidate, Russia, at the most opportune time. I know Communists methods of rousing public support: Dressing up speacial STAVKA squads in German uniforms and having them commit the most heoinous war crimes against against their own people. to avoid this kind of reception of the germans, which was standard across all of the soviet union.  |
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 31, 2006 0:13:40 GMT -5
No shit. Who said anything to the contrary? blasphemy - 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct No doubt. Apparently they were too busy taking up arms for them. And do you remember this? Tell me, who was fighting in the Red Army and who was fighting in the White Army? - Me "-naive and easily manipulated Russian noahides.
Whom by the way weren't even all that numerous.
-Russians " - YOU Are you backtracking? |
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 31, 2006 0:27:37 GMT -5
No shit. Who said anything to the contrary? blasphemy - 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct No doubt. Apparently they were too busy taking up arms for them. And do you remember this? Tell me, who was fighting in the Red Army and who was fighting in the White Army? - Me "-naive and easily manipulated Russian noahides.
Whom by the way weren't even all that numerous.
-Russians " - YOU Are you backtracking? Bolsheviks were profane and contemptuous, thats right. Numbers of the red army after the coup is inconsequential, for all you know they could've been shot for not complying. |
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 31, 2006 0:46:05 GMT -5
No shit. Who said anything to the contrary? blasphemy - 1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct No doubt. Apparently they were too busy taking up arms for them. And do you remember this? Tell me, who was fighting in the Red Army and who was fighting in the White Army? - Me "-naive and easily manipulated Russian noahides.
Whom by the way weren't even all that numerous.
-Russians " - YOU Are you backtracking? Bolsheviks were profane and contemptuous, thats right. You don't know how to read a dictionary. Don't be surprised when you're dubbed a retard. Idiot. When one talks about the Red Army vs. the White Army, one talks about the Civil War. There was no White Army before the October Revolution. The White Movement was a reaction by the conservative, monarchist forces to the Bolshevik takeover. The October Revolution by itself was nothing, without the Civil War. |
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 31, 2006 1:43:03 GMT -5
Bolsheviks were profane and contemptuous, thats right. You don't know how to read a dictionary. Don't be surprised when you're dubbed a retard. Idiot. When one talks about the Red Army vs. the White Army, one talks about the Civil War. There was no White Army before the October Revolution. The White Movement was a reaction by the conservative, monarchist forces to the Bolshevik takeover. The October Revolution by itself was nothing, without the Civil War. I was talking about the bolseviks. If you had noticed the russian poster was depicting a red trotsky, not a red army. The early members deluded and naive to think all of what was preached was going to be fullfilled. They were easilly swayed and their suffering was exploited by the internationalists by teasing them with BS about paradise and promising them revenge against the class enemies. Thats what the german poster was warning of, Bolshevism unmasked. If |
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 31, 2006 1:57:23 GMT -5
You don't know how to read a dictionary. Don't be surprised when you're dubbed a retard. Idiot. When one talks about the Red Army vs. the White Army, one talks about the Civil War. There was no White Army before the October Revolution. The White Movement was a reaction by the conservative, monarchist forces to the Bolshevik takeover. The October Revolution by itself was nothing, without the Civil War. I was talking about the bolseviks. If you had noticed the russian poster was depicting a red trotsky, not a red army. The early members deluded and naive to think all of what was preached was going to be fullfilled. They were easilly swayed and their suffering was exploited by the internationalists by teasing them with BS about paradise and promising them revenge against the class enemies. Thats what the german poster was warning of, Bolshevism unmasked. If That Trotsky poster was used by the White Army during the Civil War. And they weren't "teasing". They were ideologues. They truely believed in the socialist utopia. |
|
