this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
34 points (61.5% liked)
History
1358 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/History @ Mander.xyz!
Notice Board
- 2023-07-01: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @fossilesque@mander.xyz if interested! This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
Work in progress...
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Similar Communities
- !openscience@lemmy.ml
- !historymemes@lemmy.ml
- !history@lemmy.world
- !history@lemmygrad.ml
- !fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !microbiology@mander.xyz
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
- !archaeology@mander.xyz
- !cooking@mander.xyz
- !folklore@mander.xyz
- !history@mander.xyz
- !old_maps@mander.xyz
Memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just pointing out one of your lies, that's all. That specific year was mentioned in your article. Since I commented with it, I clearly read your first article. You saying you have no reason to believe I read your article is a blatant lie from you.
I think this is just an excuse for why you don't want to defend your position with anything except book titles. Which is very convenient, by the way, but you're not fooling anyone.
Go back and reread what you're trying to make a pedantic point about - I said you haven't even attempted to refute any of the articles claims. Here you still haven't.
Yes, it is very convenient that some of us hide our secret knowledge in books where oafs like you cannot find them, like putting cookies on top of the refridgerator.
Because we are not arguing about the article. This thread is about the Katyn Massacre, not British funding for Mussolini, which was what your first article was about. I am not the one that needs to reread anything here, I can apparently remember this much better than you.
Probably because I'm not nearly as involved in numerous different attempts to spread my country's propaganda like you are your country's, I only have to worry about this one conversation, instead of many.
That's an interesting way to cope considering that I've taught you a number of basic historical facts today. I live in Vietnam. Your singleminded devotion to spreading the propaganda of the people who appointed 3rd Reich criminals as their officials is disturbing. Are you perhaps being paid to waste my time? Or are you simply deranged?
Your "basic historical facts" are very conveniently dodging the USSR militarily seizing the land of Eastern Poland, killing many and not granting them any autonomy, as some strange way to "protect" Poles.
The USSR was marginally cleaner than the Reich. Pointing out that the West weren't good either does not mean the USSR wasn't heavy on conquest and war crimes.
If I'm wasting so much of your time, you are again, fully free to leave or block me or whatever makes you feel better.
Basic historical facts like that NATO countries have rewritten their own role in Nazism & harboring fascists, but you consider their historians the final word on the matter. I gave you some books to read that delve into the historical claims you make about the USSR, which you are welcome to engage with critically. As displayed by your repeated insistence on turning this conversation into a debate with yourself as a judge, you are not actually capable of digesting the material. I may as well hand a dog a laptop. Until you can download one of the books and digest their material I won't consider you a serious person.
Western countries are fully aware that we did not eradicate fascism, that's covered in our schools. Like I said, libs are not big on extermination, even of fascist people. Or communist people for that matter, though I do worry for our future under the Christian Nationalists. They are not libs. I do wonder, though, how you feel about the AfD being so much stronger in former East Germany than West Germany. Why is modern fascism stronger in the former Soviet Bloc region of that single country?
There's nothing for me to judge. Copy/pasting a couple book titles without giving an actual argument is a meaningless appeal to authority. Your opinion of me personally is ultimately irrelevant. It's the position that matters.
Yap yap yap yap, you're so intrigued by your own assumptions that you truly believe they are convincing. The problem is that you've absorbed American policy debate tactics where "unaddressed claims" are scored as wins. You're flat out antiintellectual. It's sad to see someone string together such a dull imitation of inductive reasoning. My guess is others attempted to use it to get through to you, and you misunderstood what they were doing. You just change the focus of the conversation bacl to your favorite propaganda after dismissing whatever you have been presented with as biased or too long to read. I doubt you have even convinced yourself of what you're saying. After all, Furr and Losurdo are this frightening unknown to you that has you making hundreds of excuses.
Have you ever engaged with a single critic of the WWII & Cold War history you've been taught in your life? Even once?
No, I just asked you for a brief summary in your own words. This is standard practice in conversation. You're the one pretending like that's too hard. This is just pretending, though, and much like your constant attempts to do personal attacks, it betrays your weakness.
Right, you want an excuse to continue writing your bullshit without reading, that's what I'm cutting you off from. The most entertaining aspect of this to me is you cannot even reference actual sources, just vague narratives you heard of and a Wikipedia page. Let me give you some advice: if you run into another person who actually reads, counter with your own recommendations. Even better, google a review of their book and bludgeon them with that. It seems you are so thrown off by being asked to read that you have no other move than to camp out in my replies asking for a summary. Has this never happened to you before?
Do you just not know what to do when asked to read before running your mouth? Your persistent reply guy behavior speaks for itself
Okay, that's one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard. We're supposed to internalize and integrate information, not just parrot whatever our authorities feed us. This is why I ask for your words, not the words of your teachers.
That is a horrible idea that will dull your independent thinking in the long run. Perhaps this has happened to you already. We are supposed to always consider thoughts separately from our elders, our countries and our teachers. This is very important. Without this we cannot be independent from our own traditions, our own narratives, our habits, etc. It's not without dangers, but it's a very important skill. We usually press it very heavily once you reach the university level. It's not for the young, obviously, but very important for adults. It's key to being able to be flexible, innovate and solve new problems.
It's like you don't believe in personally discussing information, which I still think is a flimsy excuse to cover for your weakness. You're not willing to simply discuss because you simply can't. You haven't internalized the information.
Cool email begging for what we used to call "spoon feeding". I'm taking you really seriously and about to start following your instructions, but I have one condition: you tell me the last book you read. Just the title is fine
Whatever you used to call it, we usually just call it discussion. Funny thing is, you've written pages and pages worth yourself in this thread, you could have easily saved yourself a ton of time with one brief paragraph yesterday.
Anyway, I just don't believe you, I think you're still just trolling. So, no, I'm uninterested in your conditions about me as a person or my habits. Either address the topic or do not.
Why don't you ask an AI chatbot to summarize the books for you? It would clearly be more your speed.
I don't use LLMs. Besides, I'm here because I enjoy discussing history with other people in history communities. You apparently are here for an entirely different reason, which I think is obvious to everyone.
Yeah you enjoy "discussing history" in the same way someone's dad who got into Dan Carlin does. You've got nothing but bluster when challenged to think for yourself, instead of playing liberal trivia contest, because you don't read. We both know you don't read. History is in books, did you know that? There's no "everyone" here lil bro
You really have no evidence for your insults, so they come across as very shallow. It's pretty juvenile. All you really know is I've told you I won't read your source, which I do understand upsets you.
Regardless of your holier-than-thou, elitist attitude, it doesn't matter. Either people discuss or they don't. You could discuss if you wished, but hiding behind this obvious cover of "you're not good enough to bother with", you won't discuss history, while in a history community. This makes it very obvious you don't really love history, you just want to use it as a tool for your own ends. It's a political tool for you. This is extremely common, anyone who spends any time with it has encountered the phenomenon hundreds of times in both the present and a historical context.
There's nothing beneficial about discussing history with somebody who is incapable of conducting a historical investigation. I think that most people should be able to answer a question such as the last book they read, their favorite color, what year it is, who's president, where they are, and why it smells like toast. Do you catch my drift
Of course I could answer if I wanted, I simply choose not to. They're pointless distractions. I'm more interested in staying on topic, while you seem hell-bent on making this have nothing to do with history and only about me personally and how I'm not good enough for you.
I wonder why...?
Anyways, the purpose is in the love for history. Most of us are here for enjoyment, only you are here to sell something.
No you couldn't.
The only way that would be possible is if I had never read a single book in my entire life. While a common hyperbolic claim, we both know that's a little unrealistic, don't you think? Would be very difficult to make it through schooling without doing at least some reading, after all.
This is a very silly argument to hang your hat on. Might want to think it through a little more.
Oh yeah I would be totally owned if you divulged that you had read The Very Hungry Caterpillar.
It doesn't matter, still fully meets the requirements you laid out. It does illuminate the silliness and irrelevance of your "condition" though. It's clearly just a shallow distraction.
Wow I can't believe it was that easy to guess the last book you read
You can pursue this cheap bait for as long as you want, but you're not exactly "owning" anything. This is pretty weak stuff you know.
The Lorax is really going to blow your mind when you get to that