Originally Posted by Kunikov

Is that the best you can do? Pay attention, I do not attack you as a person, which you seem to be doing to me at the moment. Rather, I attack your ignorant statements and your ignorance itself. Learn from your mistakes and move on.

My intelligence and my knowledge, flawed as you may feel them to be, are a part of me. You've been attacking me and everyone else who dares make a statement that offends your self-righteous all-knowing sensabilities. Your condescending attitude is not discussion. It is belittlement. You've taken it upon yourself to preach the true gospel of Joseph Stalin and the Eastern Front of World War II, and damn all who oppose your righteous truth. It is not a medium in which "opinions" and "personal thoughts" are welcome nor able to flourish. Not unless they are your own of course. I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish with your approach. But I've lost all taste for such "discussion."

You might be the one and only person who appears to be willing to not just defend Joseph Stalin. You're giving off the impression of being a great admirer of the man.

Don't bother to respond to this. I'd been absent from these forums for about a year, and only barely had come back. Don't know why I bothered at this point. I'm done with being insulted and belittled by Joseph Stalin's biggest fan.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

My intelligence and my knowledge, flawed as you may feel them to be, are a part of me. You've been attacking me and everyone else who dares make a statement that offends your self-righteous all-knowing sensabilities. Your condescending attitude is not discussion. It is belittlement. You've taken it upon yourself to preach the true gospel of Joseph Stalin and the Eastern Front of World War II, and damn all who oppose your righteous truth. It is not a medium in which "opinions" and "personal thoughts" are welcome nor able to flourish. Not unless they are your own of course. I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish with your approach. But I've lost all taste for such "discussion."

You might be the one and only person who appears to be willing to not just defend Joseph Stalin. You're giving off the impression of being a great admirer of the man.

Don't bother to respond to this. I'd been absent from these forums for about a year, and only barely had come back. Don't know why I bothered at this point. I'm done with being insulted and belittled by Joseph Stalin's biggest fan.

Nice try, fallacies won't work with me. I've yet to defend anyone, I have simply presented the truth as well as I have learned it. Your own ignorance is responsible for your blatant perversion of history.

With the warning that Stalin received he could have put his forces on an alert and dispersed his aircraft around the country, but instead he chose to do nothing and got hammered for it. When Churchill informed Stalin about the forthcoming attack on Russia he did not ask Russia to join in the fight at that time, but just sent the information as a warning

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

My intelligence and my knowledge, flawed as you may feel them to be, are a part of me. You've been attacking me and everyone else who dares make a statement that offends your self-righteous all-knowing sensabilities. Your condescending attitude is not discussion. It is belittlement. You've taken it upon yourself to preach the true gospel of Joseph Stalin and the Eastern Front of World War II, and damn all who oppose your righteous truth. It is not a medium in which "opinions" and "personal thoughts" are welcome nor able to flourish. Not unless they are your own of course. I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish with your approach. But I've lost all taste for such "discussion."

Its simple he is hoping to get the last word, I have to admit for a guy who's sole response to everything is "You are wrong, I know it all" the people of this forum are wasting a lot of time responding to him.
As I have seen nothing in the way of a counter argument (just denying a point is not in itself a counter argument) containing fact or sources (Oh wait they are all in Russian) from him I really think he makes a good candidate for the ignore list.

So as it goes Stalin apparently was perfect, countless Russian soldiers and civilians committed suicide simply to make it a fair fight for the grossly inferior Germans who were not attempting to implement a blitzkrieg style action in the area, have I missed anything here?
Oh and we are all ignorant because we lack the vast knowledge of a 24 year old ex-pat Russian, I think I have it all now let me know if I missed anything else.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

With the warning that Stalin received he could have put his forces on an alert and dispersed his aircraft around the country, but instead he chose to do nothing and got hammered for it. When Churchill informed Stalin about the forthcoming attack on Russia he did not ask Russia to join in the fight at that time, but just sent the information as a warning

The Red Army was put on alert, it didn't help. I already explained why Churchill's warnings were ignored. He didn't have to ask the Soviet Union to join the war, it was implied.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Its simple he is hoping to get the last word, I have to admit for a guy who's sole response to everything is "You are wrong, I know it all" the people of this forum are wasting a lot of time responding to him.
As I have seen nothing in the way of a counter argument (just denying a point is not in itself a counter argument) containing fact or sources (Oh wait they are all in Russian) from him I really think he makes a good candidate for the ignore list.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, no surprise that you use fallacies as well. Showing that none of you can back up your arguments is doing more for me than listing my sources, which is simply saving time for me.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, no surprise that you use fallacies as well. Showing that none of you can back up your arguments is doing more for me than listing my sources, which is simply saving time for me.

No but absence of substance is proof of emptiness.
It is impossible to back up an argument with someone that continually refuses to make a counter point, as has been said in other posts I don't care who's side you take in an argument as long as you provide some validation of your point and oddly enough just claiming you are right is not enough because I seriously doubt anyone believes you are the sole processor of all "correct" knowledge on the Eastern Front, in fact I don't recall any books on the matter quoting you as its source.



Still as I said in the previously at best people will stop responding to you at worst you will kill interest in the forum itself either way you are not convincing people and that after all is one of the goals in discussions.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Nice try, fallacies won't work with me. I've yet to defend anyone, I have simply presented the truth as well as I have learned it. Your own ignorance is responsible for your blatant perversion of history.

As you have learned it???

Your whole argument seems to revolve around the point that if you've learned it, it is fact. Whereas is someone else has learned it it is fallacy. All I can say is, "Boy! have you got a lot to learn about the world".

I think you have been too long under the influence of the Commissars. That's their standard argument.

I could just imagine you looking about yourself in a squad of marching men and thinking. "Why are all of these other fools out of step"?

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, no surprise that you use fallacies as well. Showing that none of you can back up your arguments is doing more for me than listing my sources, which is simply saving time for me.

Look.

Listing multiple sources is all very well. However, if you're unable to accept that a) there are few definitive answers when it comes to a subject as vast as the Eastern Front and b) just because someone has a different opinion to yours that it can also be just as valid.

It's all very well being able to quote hundreds of sources, but if you can't interpret them correctly what use are they? I'm not saying that you are misinterpreting them per se, just that you seem unable to see the value of other sensible opinions. If you are unwilling to enter into debate, why the hell are you even bothering to post on this forum? To show off your knowledge? It's refreshing that you're attempting to balance the overwhelming German bias in terms of reporting and perception, but acting in the manner you are doing is unraveling any sympathy you might get for your stance.

Put it this way my man. There are greater men who know more than you and me and the rest of this forum combined who are still humble enough to know that they can still learn from others. No-one has all the answers, certainly not me and definitely not you. How about you stop acting like you do? If your profile is correct you are 24 years of age. How the hell can you have all the answers at 24?

I give Monty, God of Thunder and everyone else more respect than you because they don't claim to be all-knowing and are willing to enter into debate. You might be more knowledgeable but I give you no respect because of the way you act. I suspect you won't give a **** but neither do I mate.

Originally Posted by MontyB

No but absence of substance is proof of emptiness.
It is impossible to back up an argument with someone that continually refuses to make a counter point, as has been said in other posts I don't care who's side you take in an argument as long as you provide some validation of your point and oddly enough just claiming you are right is not enough because I seriously doubt anyone believes you are the sole processor of all "correct" knowledge on the Eastern Front, in fact I don't recall any books on the matter quoting you as its source.



Still as I said in the previously at best people will stop responding to you at worst you will kill interest in the forum itself either way you are not convincing people and that after all is one of the goals in discussions.

First off I haven't claimed much, aside from showing people's ignorance. Secondly, you and your cohort are the ones who are, continuously, addressing me instead of the subject at hand. If you'd move on to actually show some knowledge in the area this would be played out quite differently. Now, indeed, stop addressing me, rather address what I've written, be it based on something or a lack thereof.