Skip to main content

Recent Posts

DnD Central / Re: Modern liberalism is becoming utterly stupid
Last post by jax -
I don't see leftist liberalism spreading. It maybe spread in the 60's and 70's or so. It definitely stopped spreading as Reagan and Thatcher were in power. Right now Trump and Putin are in power. Are they leftist liberals?

What is spreading is contrarianism and confrontationalism. Deep entrenchment of all camps and subcultures against each other has reached a tipping point.

It seems almost a constant that 4%-5% vote for Liberal parties, almost no matter where and when, in Europe anyway. It may go up, even double, or down to half, but give it a few years, and there it will be back to 4%-5% again.

Right illiberal parties have probably reached their zenith in most Western countries, while left parties, both liberal and illiberal, are on the rise. So is illiberalism, right, left or otherwise, across the world. There is good news, places that have turned more liberal, especially in Africa, but overshadowed by the more totalitarian bent elsewhere.

DnD Central / Re: Modern liberalism is becoming utterly stupid
Last post by ersi -
Symbolic proxy battles in an inanimate field is not constructive, and might distract from real liberation. Should female connectors have the same wages as male?
In the inanimate field there are no wages. And who is supposed to be liberated in the inanimate field?

Mind you, anything offensive is likely to be renamed. E.g. anything abbreviated to "KKK" will not be so for long.
In Estonian language we are boldly abbreviating European Central Bank exactly the same way as Estonian Communist Party. This has not changed in 30 years. The aimed effect is to associate the abbreviation with the bank rather than the party. There may be the same aim with the KKK abbreviation also.
DnD Central / Re: Modern liberalism is becoming utterly stupid
Last post by jax -

But now these words are being banned, so it appears that somebody else has been lobbying... I'd suspect lobbying makes terminology worse, not better, and it is entirely the wrong approach to do terminology by lobbying.

Personally I think Master/Slave should be renamed Mistress/Slave in the name of equality and progress. But this IETF draft thinks differently.

Symbolic proxy battles in an inanimate field is not constructive, and might distract from real liberation. Should female connectors have the same wages as male? Mind you, anything offensive is likely to be renamed. E.g. anything abbreviated to "KKK" will not be so for long. The purpose of protocols is not to communicate, not to annoy. The latter is incidental, from actual use.

Hitler started getting somewhere because he was elected in when democracy still existed in Germany. A year ago I watched a tv programme on Hitler and included a country rally he was speaking at and he actually said there would be no longer any party except his.

As for the gladly gone USSR days Stalin was just as evil as that horrible man before him - Lenin. Indeed Stalin multi-murdered far more in his country than even Hitler did. The other night on YouTube I came across people being interviewed on a Moscow street at the time that marked 100 years since that terrible revolution and got a surprise. Repeated views that the revolution was a mistake and turned out a negative on the country. Another repeat was the horrible murder of the Imperial family which most did not agree with at all. The present attempts to improve their system is in itself a principled stance and there are progressive things in the moves. Seeing they use the old Imperial symbols including the crown symbol and there are senior military units with Tsarist dress uniforms that is a gap!
I think you are wrong jax as the stance I say has been a continued thing for modern years and becoming so gradually regular even though you have failed to note that!
DnD Central / Re: Slowness in Scotland openings
Last post by rjhowie -
Well suppose you can live by being called ignorant as gives you a bodyswerve from factuals. Whether it is the money spent on Gaelic, station names, would be unable to fund an independent country you can sink. You have factually done well in helping my stance by your inability or ignorance as a stance.
Right now Trump and Putin are in power. Are they leftist liberals?
This movement wasn't created for taking the power, it was created for destroying the western world foundations. I think it doesn't act in Russia. (nor in China, obviously)

Its targets are the USA and the EU.

On Hitler's side it was the other way round. At first he had thoroughly discussed and planned everything with his generals and there was collegial agreement on how to conduct the war. As everything worked out with complete success at first, Hitler began believing in his own absolute infallibility and immortality, and gradually denied consultancy by generals, which eventually spelled the doom of his campaigns.
What a wonderfully evocative, succinct and clear description.  :up:
Quote from: Putin
Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non-Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period - with all its triumphs and tragedies - is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let us recall that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of 24 December 1989 officially denounced the secret protocols as "an act of personal power" which in no way reflected "the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion."
Since the 1989 Supreme Soviet resolution was very damning against MRP, it does not help Putin's case in justifying MRP at all. MRP divided the world between Third Reich and USSR the same way as the similarly insane Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 divided the world between Spain and Portugal.

The Treaty of Tordesillas ignored the other emerging colonial powers England, Holland, and France, not to mention the rights of the peoples that were doomed to undergo colonisation. MRP ignored the rights of all countries and peoples located between Third Reich and USSR and hoped that the Western powers on the other side (France, UK, USA) would stay away from direct action as they had thus far.

Quote from: Putin
Poland's hope for help from its Western allies was in vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometers deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting on 12 September 1939 in the French city of Abbeville, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.

Later, during the Nuremberg trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. The former chief of the operations staff of the German armed forces high command, General Alfred Jodl admitted: "...we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle."
Yes, the idleness of Western powers when Poland was attacked was criminal. Similarly their idleness these days in addressing the annexation of Crimea is criminal.

Moreover, in my opinion, World War II was already under way by the time of MRP. Anschluss of Austria was already an act of war and everybody should have treated it with full seriousness. Similarly, annexation of Crimea - and the accompanying "People's Republics" in Eastern Ukraine are acts of war, preceded by frozen war zones of Abkhazia, Transnistria, and South Ossetia, remain unaddressed by EU and NATO. Their failure to address all these as acts of war which is what they are is a conclusive demonstration of their ineptitude and criminal incompetence.

But is Russia really decrying this idleness and ineffectiveness of the Western powers? No, Russia is happily abusing it and keeps pushing the limits.

Quote from: Putin
...the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops [when attacking Poland as per MRP] occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.

As is known, there is hardly any point in using the subjunctive mood when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.
The good old "we did not steal more than this, therefore it was okay to steal" argument. Works fine in Putin's mind.

Quote from: Putin
In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Vilna and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher state
structures of the Soviet Union.
Again as if Soviet Union's strategic military and defensive goals were in full right to override everybody else's interests, such as smaller countries' modest interest of independence and self-determination within their own territory.

Of course, as there was no "contractual basis" but breach of the non-aggression contracts and there was no "consent of the elected authorities" but replacement of the elected authorities followed by bogus consent for annexation, I actually admire that Putin even dares to bring this up. However, he ends up demonstrating how the history of annexation of the Baltic countries is perceived in Russia. It is at variance even with the official history in the Baltic countries as it was taught in Soviet times. So in a sense we could say that Baltic autonomy in USSR was considerable, as the people preserved their own sense of historicity even throughout the Soviet era. For example, the Stalinist deportations and other persecutions that started along with the alleged "contractual basis" and "consent of the elected authorities" have always been common knowledge, while never acknowledged in Russia under USSR or by Russia to this day.

Quote from: Putin
And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved the Barbarossa Plan. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. And he had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.
In my opinion, WWII theatre between USSR and Third Reich worked out as follows. By the beginning of WWII, Stalin had gained absolute powers, decided everything by himself and did not allow anyone to deviate. All strategic decisions, such as complete unpreparedness for Hitler's attack, were due to Stalin. Only gradually, after all the terrible losses, Stalin began giving his generals more power and more autonomy, and that's when battles began eventually working out in favour of USSR.

On Hitler's side it was the other way round. At first he had thoroughly discussed and planned everything with his generals and there was collegial agreement on how to conduct the war. As everything worked out with complete success at first, Hitler began believing in his own absolute infallibility and immortality, and gradually denied consultancy by generals, which eventually spelled the doom of his campaigns.

Quote from: Putin
The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilized and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military  potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also German satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilization and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country.
Of course, and despite much that Putin said earlier, USSR was not ready for this. Stalin's turn of policy from anti-nazism to pro-nazism was intended as sincere and he was not ready for an all-out assault by Hitler and his clients and allies.

For example, according to the secret protocols of MRP, Finland belonged to Stalin, but the fierce military resistance that Stalin had to put up with in Finland was supported by airplanes from Third Reich, because Finland (Mannerheim) was Hitler's ally and did not have airplanes of his own. Stalin complained about this to Hitler a little bit, but still failed to see how these circumstances demonstrated the actual goals and plans of Hitler with regard to USSR, not to mention the fact that smaller countries may have interests too, such as self-preservation instinct.

Quote from: Putin
The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.


Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union's hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished - Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty.


It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.
The good old "we suffered most, therefore all we did is good" argument. Nevermind that much loss of Soviet life was due to e.g. attack-by-manpower-rather-than-gunpower tactic and Soviet own backshooter squads.

The standard ploy is to say "liberate" when they conquer, whereas the enemy is depicted as the aggressor. In reality however, many people on the Soviet-annexed lands of Poland considered Germans as liberators compared to the brief Soviet regime that they had briefly experienced, some considered both regimes oppressive, but nobody on the receiving end considered Soviets as liberators. Soviets were liberators only in their own opinion.

Let's be clear, Stalinism was a totalitarian and highly oppressive and destructive regime. It created Holocausts of its own, bigger by scale than Hitler's. USSR caused most of its own suffering even during the war.

Quote from: Putin
Such figures as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers - though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism - are traitors and slaughterers. In inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.
The purpose of this list is one: remove the space from listing Soviet crimes. Of particular interest is Katyn massacre (pl Katyń, ru Катынь), similar but different from Khatyn massacre (pl Chatyń, ru Хатынь). Putin mentions the latter, which was a collective punishment by Nazi collaborators against Belarussian villagers near Minsk after a partisan raid in 1943 i.e. the tide of the war had turned against Third Reich. 156 villagers were killed.

Based on the similarity of the name, Soviet and Russian propagandists (including Putin) routinely bring this up to give the superficial impression that they are addressing all possible crimes, but in reality they do it to hide the Katyn massacre, which was a systematic annihilation of Polish military and administrative elite by Soviets in 1940 i.e. as soon as Poland had been divided and occupied as per MRP. The scale, nature, and severity of Katyn massacre alone rivals the entire Putin's list, indicating a bit of a bias of his listing. Or a bit of historical revisionism that he brings up next.

Quote from: Putin
Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, and primarily with regard to the subject of the Second World War and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development, laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.
Sure enough Yalta was important in regulating the relations of major powers. At the same time it cemented a permanent dissatisfaction for most non-major powers. It divided the world into client states on either the Soviet side or the Western side and on the remote fronts there was much blood spilt when the major powers tried to gain clients. While post-WWII order defined a cold war between the major powers and allotted clients in their vicinity, a hot continuation of WWII took place in Africa and Far East.

The way WWII played out, it was objectively necessary to have the kind of settlement between the major powers including Russia. But by now the circumstances have changed, most notably the Warsaw Pact and USSR fell apart.

Quote from: Putin
It is a duty of ours - all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victorious powers in the Second World War - to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues - Mr. Xi Jinping, Mr. Macron, Mr. Trump and Mr. Johnson - supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon States, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such a face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs. To speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, as well as joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.
In other words, Putin is proposing Yalta 2. The problem is that everybody defines terrorism, extremism etc. from their own perspective. For us Russia's cyberattacks, media manipulation (including historical revisionism on the most high official level as represented by Putin's speech here), creeping military expansion (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Tiraspol, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine) etc. are exactly the extremism and terrorism to be countered, while Russia would of course pay attention to obliterate this perspective when given the opportunity at a summit a la Yalta 2.

There's much more to be said about this speech. I snipped out a lot. Check out the full-length original
Vladimir Putin: The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II

June 18, 2020

The Russian president offers a comprehensive assessment of the legacy of World War II, arguing that "Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account."
Of course, in true Russian fashion, Putin notices how Russia's (actually USSR's) interests were betrayed by the big Western powers, while failing to notice and acknowledge how all greater powers, including USSR/Russia, trample on all smaller countries while playing their own supposedly big games. What follows is from Putin's "self-critical and unbiased" speech about the lessons of World War II.

Quote from: Putin
...the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfill their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Motherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country's sovereignty.


At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear.
This sets the tone from the beginning. Unsurprisingly, not very self-critical or unbiased.

Quote from: Putin
It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in the Russian, but also in the foreign archives.

Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicized speculations.
Good that we agree about the documents. Let's also see if we agree on the selection and interpretation of the documents.

Quote from: Putin
The "Versailles world order" caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into "time bombs".
First, let's note that talking about "Versailles world order" in this manner (which I mostly omitted from quoting) comes dangerously close to hailing Nazis as restorers of justice to Germany.

Second, the current map of Europe is fairly similar to post-World War I map and border disputes are as negligible now as they were then. Post World War I, territorial claims in Europe became a notable military threat only when Hitler and Stalin began making them. Same as now, e.g. annexation of Crimea by Russia is an issue. There are hardly any other border disputes in Europe, certainly not by means of actual land grabs.

Quote from: Putin
The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system, and sign an Eastern European pact and a Pacific pact to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.
Naturally there was no way USSR could have convinced anyone of its peaceful intentions considering both its recent and concurrent history, such as propagating the idea of world revolution in all countries of the world by means of initiatives such as Komintern.

Quote from: Putin
Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.
While this is all perfectly true, Putin here sets the important undertone of painting Western powers eviler, so that Stalin would look redeemable. In reality, Stalin was at least as irredeemable as others. For lack of opportunity to wreak havoc abroad, Stalin committed crimes against own population in such a scale that others pale in comparison. As opportunity presented itself, Stalin wreaked havoc among other nations also.

Quote from: Putin
Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories...

Poland was aware that without Hitler's support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail.


Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.
The territory that Poland claimed and then occupied was the Czech half of Cieszyn/Tesin (from Polish perspective - Zaolzie), while 1920 (and current) border divides the area along the river. Here Putin paints Polish annexation of Zaolzie as evil, while Russia's annexation of Poland (up next) is of course painted as quite benign. It's the standard brainwash in Russia - "Look what Poles are doing!" as if Poles were really doing anything of their own or anything of a comparable severity and scale as Russians.

Quote from: Putin
The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance of creating an anti-Hitler coalition...

Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht.

In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts - with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country's defenses.
In real life, USSR did not use Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to strengthen the country's defenses against Germany. Instead, Stalin behaved under the assumption that he had perfectly secured his relations with Hitler and was now free to gobble up the Baltic countries and Finland as well as Mongolia, i.e. free from worries on the German front and free to be on the offensive on some other fronts. This manifested itself in the fact how deep Third Reich was able to attack into USSR before it was stopped.

As to Poland again, it was of course absolutely not in Poland's interests to have a similar military pact with USSR as was pushed on the Baltic countries (who accepted it in the hope that their non-aggression pacts with Germany at the same time would somehow contain USSR actions). So here Putin is pretending as if Russia/USSR's interests were legitimate while other countries' interests are either illegitimate, negligible, or perfectly ignorable. In global diplomacy, bigger countries do this all the time and pretend they have the right. No, they only have the might, never the right.