[Smilin' Dave]

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here. The world runs on violence, which both sides commit. No, it's been a long time since I've believed in the puerile world of cowboys and Injuns, good guys and bad guys, pushed onto a population of infantile hysterics to serve a narrative. Again, what exactly is your point?

My point is you ramble about there being no good guys or bad guys when it comes to your preferred side (in this case Nazi Germany) being the bad guys, but then use language that clearly shows that you see them as the good guys. Your attempt to dismiss moral questions is clearly a tactical move at best, and generally exceedingly phoney.

It's just as absurd as Andropov decrying the sadism of Wehrmacht troops while making excuses for the Soviet troops.

nor have I obscured my sympathies for Qaddafi (who isn't germane to the topic of this discussion in any sense)

It's quite appropriate in highlighting that your claimed moral viewpoint is not one you generally hold. Alternatively we could chalk this up to you contradicting yourself again, you know like championing Prussian values while trying to champion the anti-old guard elements of the Nazi movement at the same time? I think this latter option is unlikely, as contradiction of that sort tends to be a question of confusion, where as I think you knew exactly what you are doing in this thread. The wonder is only that you think people are stupid enough to fall for something so obvious.

I have never accused our opponents, the Red Army or present-day benefactors of the liberal-capitalist order of being "evil" or "bad guys".

While we're on the topic of the Red Army etc. I might note you took Andropov to task for his moral stand, but when Preston Cole, your ideological fellow traveller, took a similar moral stand to which you're supposedly opposed, you said nothing. Again, this implies your stance is tactical rather than a sincerely held belief.

They are factions pushing their own economic and social interests wrapped in a belief system; it simply happens to be a belief system I oppose and wish to see eradicated. There is no contradiction in supporting any faction and having an opinion and ideological influences, as I do, and recognizing the inherent amorality and relativity of the course of history.

Having a desired outcome requires you to make a choice based on values ultimately, all you've done is create the good guys/bad guys strawman for those who have done the same. You clearly are not arguing on simple practicalities here, so it must be a question of certain belief systems being more in line with your own values than others. That you want (wishes are after all desires, not some inevitable outcome) opposing systems to be destroyed again speaks of a value judgement.

What the hell difference does scale make?

Scale and method make events unique, and unique events defy broad comparisons such as the one you wished to make. Would you place the murder of one in the small place as the murder of dozens? Of course not. Be serious.

If the Mongol Empire had Zyklon-B, there likely wouldn't be a nation of Iraq today.

As I had to point out to Rich recently, the Mongols actually got to where they were by co-opting subject peoples, not by wiping them all out.

Apparently you couldn't find anything even remotely similar (in terms of scale or otherwise) in a time even slightly contemporaneous to the Holocaust, hence why you've decided to argue the idiotic comparison of Hitler and Ghengis Khan

You have a fine mind for history and analysis, but you seem to lock yourself forever in some irrelevant moral narrative crafted by men who themselves are a product of the era.

So first you want to draw parallels between events centuries apart, then you want to go on about historical figures being the product of their era? In this instance I can't tell if you're simply adopting an absurdly transparent tactical ruse, or if your really believe such a contradictory load of crap.

Fine, you want to talk about products of an era? Then I restate that you find me other similar examples from the era outside of the Soviet Union. After all France and Britain occupy the same era and you wanted to draw the parallel in the first place.

German resistance to the world order engineered by England was the most fantastic and glorious act in the history of our people since Arminius stood defiant of the Roman hordes. It should never be apologized for. Anyone who presents the mere suggestion within Germany today is a traitor worthy of nothing but deprivation and extrajudicial execution.

But you don't believe in good guys and bad guys, right? Perhaps only "glorious" guys and the "world order", "hordes" or "traitors". Instead of 'cowboys and injuns' I find you playing the same game, but with 'grown up' terms in place of the original players.

[Rei Murasame]

Alternatively we could chalk this up to you contradicting yourself again, you know like championing Prussian values while trying to champion the anti-old guard elements of the Nazi movement at the same time?

I may be stepping in between some very heavy gunfire from both sides here, but to to be fair I'd highlight that the "Prussian values" signature that FRS uses is pretty old now, and it may just be a matter of it needing replacing/updating in some way.

[Andropov]

It's just as absurd as Andropov decrying the sadism of Wehrmacht troops while making excuses for the Soviet troops.

I'm making "excuses" for Soviet troops because their behavior is a natural response to completely unprovoked brutality on the hands of the German invader. It was not mindless slaughter, but revenge killing and rape for much greater harm brought onto the USSR by Nazi Germany (compare the few thousand civilians killed in the Red Army march on Berlin with the 7 million Soviet citizens completely exterminated). Whereas German cruelty was completely unprovoked, not even on a historical basis- Russia and Germany never had the historical back and forth animosity of Germany and France, for instance.

[Far-Right Sage]

Dave, I believe you have wildly misinterpreted my position and your claims to be frank come off as pure silliness.

Let's address the Prussian question, since you seem to be keen on looking for contradictions where there are none. There were many respectable elements found within the original Kingdom of Prussia. It was a high point for German civilization. With respect to the graphic you are referring to, which clearly includes Wehrmacht servicemen, the intention is to evoke a bit of the palingenetic spirit which existed at the time, which was a firm throwback to Prussian militarism. That I endorse this element of the Prussian establishment and simultaneously criticize some of the old guard for proving obstacles to the total implementation of fascism within Germany is no more contradictory than my approval of some of what Dollfuß achieved with Austrofascism while condemning his opposition to further territorial integration.

What you seem to be saying is that if one supports or endorses a state or political faction in history, it is hypocritical to disagree with some of their values or the implementation of certain values. That's clearly so much rubbish.

As for "scale", the fact that Germans, German-Americans, Germans in Latin America, etc. have always been an efficient people is no cause for creating any unique category for anything. We have been an industrious breed for thousands of years. Dyer lining up Indian women and children in a courtyard and shooting them in the face is no less damaging and "unique" for those executed.

I'm beyond tired of Anglophile historians who whitewash British imperial history and make a fuss over German actions. This from the nation which occupied a quarter of the planet, traded slaves, shelled and burned towns for refusing to allow hard drugs to be sold to their children, slaughtered the Irish nation virtually out of existence, shot and tormented Indians at will, etc. Centuries of rape, terrorism, slavery, and violent expansionism, with the last century and a half being carried out exclusively and explicitly for the banks. British moralism vis-a-vis German actions is an absolute fucking joke.

As for violence committed during the period, Britain and France committed plenty, but they were not revolutionary states opposed by an entrenched global power bloc. Dominant and established powers are by definition more moderate and conservative, as they are seeking to conserve the power they already have accumulated. That English hypocrites find German, Japanese, and Italian actions so appalling is more the attitude of a neighborhood thug who becomes offended that local residents are beginning to fight back and in the process aren't playing by the rules written by him. It's quite akin to the British mass murdering Irish men, women, and children for centuries and subsequently proclaiming the evils of terrorism when three English businessmen are killed in a pub. If anything is terrorism, it is what the British did to captive nations the moment they had the ability. I have no qualms with terrorism as it has its place, but Anglo-French hypocrisy when it concerns nationalist states that challenged their own romanticist myths and delusions of grandeur is legendary.

In reference to supposedly taking Andropov to task and ignoring other comments, that's right. I came into this discussion to criticize the inflammatory Germanophobic tone of the original comments.

This talk of hypocrisy over "value judgements" is also abject silliness. Holding a belief system and ideology does not mean one believes in moralist hogwash concerning the opponent. I wish to see Marxism eradicated off the face of the earth, but I have never considered Marxists evil. We simply have diametrically opposed visions and desires for the future course of the world. There is zero contradiction here.

[Smilin' Dave]

I may be stepping in between some very heavy gunfire from both sides here, but to to be fair I'd highlight that the "Prussian values" signature that FRS uses is pretty old now, and it may just be a matter of it needing replacing/updating in some way.

I see myself as pointing out to FRS that he is standing in a minefield of his own making, rather than directing gunfire. As in this instance, FRS in fact attempted to defend his confused and highlighly contradictory stance on the occasion the bizarre choice of Prussianism/Nazism/Strasserism was pointed out. The signature remains uncorrected, because FRS sees nothing wrong with making absolutely no sense.

You managed to pull the moral relativism schtick off more successfully, because you've played in cool and even academically as the role requires. FRS has shown no nuance and now seeks to reconcile the contradiction by pretending it never happened, which is itself exceedingly clumsy.

I'm making "excuses" for Soviet troops because their behavior is a natural response to completely unprovoked brutality on the hands of the German invader.

Except a lot of the offences committed by Red Army troops were actually committed by rear echelon troops who were hardly in a high stress situation (front line troops tended to be a too busy...) and in many cases were probably not personally invovled in any way with previous German atrocities. While you could then say that they were simply retaliating on behalf of their fellow countrymen, the problem then becomes that it isn't a 'reasonable response' any more, it at best would be punitive vigilantism.

Let's address the Prussian question, since you seem to be keen on looking for contradictions where there are none. There were many respectable elements found within the original Kingdom of Prussia. It was a high point for German civilization. With respect to the graphic you are referring to, which clearly includes Wehrmacht servicemen, the intention is to evoke a bit of the palingenetic spirit which existed at the time, which was a firm throwback to Prussian militarism. That I endorse this element of the Prussian establishment and simultaneously criticize some of the old guard for proving obstacles to the total implementation of fascism within Germany is no more contradictory than my approval of some of what Dollfuß achieved with Austrofascism while condemning his opposition to further territorial integration.

What you've described is incompatible. The more left wing strains of Nazism that you championed in the previous thread were not favourable to a professional military precisely because it was a home of the old guard, who defined themselves through a version of Prussianism. If your evocation of Prussian values were a reference to the state socialism of Bismarck you would at least be making some sense. Far from your use of the image of soldiers making your position more logical, it actually makes it all the more ridiculous.

What you seem to be saying is that if one supports or endorses a state or political faction in history, it is hypocritical to disagree with some of their values or the implementation of certain values.

Not only is that not my position, I don't believe you really think that's what I said either. The old strawman argument.

What I said, for clarity, is that dismissing all moral questions with dubious relativism when it comes to your favoured faction while using value laden language to lionise the wonders of that faction or others is a transparent, stupid, tactic. Your use of said tactic should be pointed out, and you should feel bad about it. Alternatively you believe in complete nonsense... I'm at least trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

As for "scale", the fact that Germans, German-Americans, Germans in Latin America, etc. have always been an efficient people is no cause for creating any unique category for anything. We have been an industrious breed for thousands of years. Dyer lining up Indian women and children in a courtyard and shooting them in the face is no less damaging and "unique" for those executed.

How totally absurd. There is so much wrong with that small collection of words you've got there I'm at a loss as to where to start with the demolition.

While trying to defend your favoured 'team' for mass murder you feel compelled to heap praise upon them. Imagine if you will a defence attorney explaining to a jury that his client was too brave not to kill a defenceless man, so his crimes merit not consideration.

Your crocodile tears for the individual victims (so much for taking the broad view hey FRS? ), or alternatively your attempt to paint my position as somehow worse than your own apparent cheerleading for a genocidal regime, is pathetic. Look, if being shot in the face is awful enough for you, then there was plenty of that going on with the Einsatzgruppen.

Your comparison is a nonsensical one, even if we leave the question of scale out (if you can count, hundreds or thousands are fewer than millions). Remember how I said methodology was important? Well pay attention:
- The Amritsar Massacre was not the result of a deliberate policy, it was in fact an aberration caused by a local commander overstepping his authority.
- Churchill, not noted for shrinking from hard tactics in defence of the British Empire called it monstrous. In fact after Amritsar, British policy was notably more restrained in India. Nazi respression only grew with time, starting with the Nuremburg laws eventually escalating to the Aktion Reinhard and so forth.
- Dyer was relived of his command after the incident, in comparison to your Nazi example where not only were massacres and extermination not punished, they were the order of the day.

I'm beyond tired of Anglophile historians who whitewash British imperial history and make a fuss over German actions. This from the nation which occupied a quarter of the planet, traded slaves, shelled and burned towns for refusing to allow hard drugs to be sold to their children, slaughtered the Irish nation virtually out of existence, shot and tormented Indians at will, etc. Centuries of rape, terrorism, slavery, and violent expansionism, with the last century and a half being carried out exclusively and explicitly for the banks. British moralism vis-a-vis German actions is an absolute fucking joke.

Once again it is obvious that your claimed position of morale negation is a false one, you're only upset about moral judgement of your own side. Your whole ramble is couched in terms of it all being wrong not because there is judgement at all, but that judgement was passed on your beloved Nazis.

As for violence committed during the period, Britain and France committed plenty, but they were not revolutionary states opposed by an entrenched global power bloc.

Your explanation fails. The Holocaust had nothing to do with being a revolutionary state (after all it didn't really start till well after the 'revolution') or with the largely imagined threats of a global power bloc, and everything to do with racist trash logic. Once again you make lame excuses for Germany while excoriating Britain and France... which in turn makes no sense since your original position was supposedly that all these things were equal and not worthy of consideration at all.

In reference to supposedly taking Andropov to task and ignoring other comments, that's right. I came into this discussion to criticize the inflammatory Germanophobic tone of the original comments.

Highlighting your hypocrisy. Remember, that your position is biased isn't surprising or even concerning to me, it's that you pretend not to be when it suits you. Now you pretend that your stumblings never happened. Remember how I suggested you were playing 'grown up' make believe?

Holding a belief system and ideology does not mean one believes in moralist hogwash concerning the opponent.

No one who can read could be fooled into thinking you haven't been trying to secure the moral high ground, all while trying to insist that no such ground exists.

There is zero contradiction here.

That's the greatest lie you've written on your position so far.

[Far-Right Sage]

What you've described is incompatible. The more left wing strains of Nazism that you championed in the previous thread were not favourable to a professional military precisely because it was a home of the old guard, who defined themselves through a version of Prussianism. If your evocation of Prussian values were a reference to the state socialism of Bismarck you would at least be making some sense. Far from your use of the image of soldiers making your position more logical, it actually makes it all the more ridiculous.

I will reiterate what I stated in reference to you looking for contradictions where there are none, because I know it to be true. It's as nonsensical as saying that there is a contradiction because I endorse the Kingdom of Prussia at all, yet am not and never was a monarchist. Again, I celebrate the spirit of militarism and militaristic thoroughness that so many Germans prize as well, as through well-led conflict with Austria, Denmark, and France, Germany had the opportunity to come into being as a country. The most dedicated National Socialist, including the Strasserite wing I endorse, would not reject the Prussian spirit in its entirety which is directly congruent with German patriotism and development, even if they rejected entirely the latter day descendants of a Prussian aristocracy who were certainly too rigidly conservative for the revolutionary atmosphere in Germany during the time.

Although you seem intent on making a stink over nothing, there is no contradiction there whatsoever, and you are not correct on this, for you do not know my own position on the subject better than myself. That is my position - there were positive elements from the Prussian period celebrated by many Germans today and there was as well a rejection of some of the more unsavory aspects of the Prussian aristocracy and their rigid attitude in revolutionary Germany. That you fail to understand my position or simply don't want to is your own error.

Not only is that not my position, I don't believe you really think that's what I said either. The old strawman argument.

What I said, for clarity, is that dismissing all moral questions with dubious relativism when it comes to your favoured faction while using value laden language to lionise the wonders of that faction or others is a transparent, stupid, tactic. Your use of said tactic should be pointed out, and you should feel bad about it. Alternatively you believe in complete nonsense... I'm at least trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

First of all, my comment was not a strawman and I believe you misread my statement entirely. It was in reference to your criticism of my position on the Prussian question, not any of the broader moral discussion brought up in this topic.

Your crocodile tears for the individual victims (so much for taking the broad view hey FRS?
), or alternatively your attempt to paint my position as somehow worse than your own apparent cheerleading for a genocidal regime, is pathetic. Look, if being shot in the face is awful enough for you, then there was plenty of that going on with the Einsatzgruppen.

Over time I have stated again and again that I apologize for nothing when I believe the cause to be beneficial and in the interests of my people, so the crocodile tears comment is false and irrelevant. I don't feign sympathy for those irrelevant to what was actually being fought for; that's a modern tactic which seeks to distract the listening public from the actual distinction in specific worldviews and their actualization which led to conflict.

Your comparison is a nonsensical one, even if we leave the question of scale out (if you can count, hundreds or thousands are fewer than millions). Remember how I said methodology was important? Well pay attention:
- The Amritsar Massacre was not the result of a deliberate policy, it was in fact an aberration caused by a local commander overstepping his authority.
- Churchill, not noted for shrinking from hard tactics in defence of the British Empire called it monstrous. In fact after Amritsar, British policy was notably more restrained in India. Nazi respression only grew with time, starting with the Nuremburg laws eventually escalating to the Aktion Reinhard and so forth.
- Dyer was relived of his command after the incident, in comparison to your Nazi example where not only were massacres and extermination not punished, they were the order of the day

That the Amritsar Massacre was not explicitly ordered in London in no way negates the action as a British one. Dyer was not some rogue drifter. It is a common feature in colonial situations for commanders in the field to exceed orders and go above and beyond what is required or helpful, but that was the atmosphere of British colonialism. That Churchill, a man who advocated the gassing of "uncivilized tribes" in colonial Iraq and didn't bat an eyelid at the razing of villages and communities there condemned it is almost an afterthought and in no way a consolation to anything.

Once again it is obvious that your claimed position of morale negation is a false one, you're only upset about moral judgement of your own side. Your whole ramble is couched in terms of it all being wrong not because there is judgement at all, but that judgement was passed on your beloved Nazis.

Let's clarify this as I believe you're continuously misinterpreting my position, and I cannot decide if it is misunderstanding or deliberate spite. My disagreement is with there being any universal moral judgement passed on such actions, yes. My bringing up harsh measures instituted by British and Soviet authorities in Europe or elsewhere is not intended to morally condemn those powers, but effectively inquire as to how their fervent supporters and those who whitewash their history can be so dogmatic in their condemnation of Axis actions.

Your explanation fails. The Holocaust had nothing to do with being a revolutionary state (after all it didn't really start till well after the 'revolution') or with the largely imagined threats of a global power bloc, and everything to do with racist trash logic. Once again you make lame excuses for Germany while excoriating Britain and France... which in turn makes no sense since your original position was supposedly that all these things were equal and not worthy of consideration at all.

I do not give them consideration in the sense that I have ever considered a power immoral for its actions, as that is not at all the value system I believe in. Yes, everyone has personal values and ethics shaped by parental upbringing, society, experience, etc. This does not translate to a universal morality, least of all one which is or should be practiced by nation-states on an international basis under liberal principles. As for the Jewish killings, my primary opinion on that subject has always been the rejection of both the action and the issue as a distraction, but it's not something extremely important in the discussion, because no power was waging the war to prevent it in the least bit, nor would they be even with the knowledge of the entire operation looking back to British and U.S. policy in the 30's.

Highlighting your hypocrisy. Remember, that your position is biased isn't surprising or even concerning to me, it's that you pretend not to be when it suits you. Now you pretend that your stumblings never happened. Remember how I suggested you were playing 'grown up' make believe?

I believe, however, that the position you are taking vis-a-vis my statements is quite erroneous. When on earth have I pretended not to be biased on this subject? Once again, there is a difference between believing in a system of universal morality measured against having a personal ideological belief system in which, naturally, I'm going to chastise a power such as the Soviets and criticize their supporters for airbrushing certain things.

No one who can read could be fooled into thinking you haven't been trying to secure the moral high ground, all while trying to insist that no such ground exists.

That's the greatest lie you've written on your position so far.

Nope, not in the least bit. Again, I know what my positions are, yet you clearly do not. To gain a perspective, one need only examine the conversation I had with the user by the name of "Stalker" in which we both came to terms that I care little for the Soviet casualties and he cares little for the German casualties. It's not a matter of taking moral high ground, but inherent biases and predispositions that we all have based on ethnic, national, ideological, or cultural loyalty.

[Smilin' Dave]

I believe you misread my statement entirely.

No you're just hopelessly ideologically blind or completely and hilariously dishonest.

How many ways do I need to restate that using moral relativist logic, but only applying it to one side and to a side to which you are clearly biased is completely ridiculous? You say I've misread your statement but actually what you've done is miss the point over and over again. Further indulging your delusions doesn't hold any further amusement for me.

[Far-Right Sage]

Likewise, Dave, as I have already explained my position and I suppose nothing can be gained from a conversation in which you neither understand my position nor care to.

I don't apply anything to one side, because I do not believe for one second that National Socialist Germany was some morally righteous actor in any universal sense. I believe the intent of what was carried out to align with my personal interests and my personal beliefs. Hence why I have never labeled the Red Army or any other faction as evil in some abstract and meaningless sense. Nor do I condemn Soviet actions on the basis of the actions alone, for I would not be condemning them if committed by Germans to further something I personally held faith in. I openly admit that and have not denied it. I believe everyone has personal ethics, a personal system of values, etc., but do not believe that any value system crafted by men can be interpreted as universal; the onus is on us to further it, if we believe it to be fundamentally positive.

[Smilin' Dave]

I don't apply anything to one side

The most gauling thing about all of this are your fucking stupid lies. I think your old enough to know better.

[Far-Right Sage]

You have the liberty to believe what you will then. I know what I said to be fundamentally up front, truthful, and an accurate representation of my feelings on the subject at hand.

[Andropov]

I don't think there's anything hypocritical per se about FRS's position- he simply puts the national interests of his own people at an absolute superiority over those of others. You can attack that position on the basis of morality, but you can't accuse it of double standards, as there are none.

[Malatant of Shadow]

It was not mindless slaughter, but revenge killing and rape for much greater harm brought onto the USSR by Nazi Germany

I could be wrong, but I don't think there were a lot of German women bringing harms, greater or lesser, into Nazi Germany.

Or are you talking about Soviet soldiers raping SS troopers up the butt? I guess that might be a revenge rape.

[Smilin' Dave]

I don't think there's anything hypocritical per se about FRS's position- he simply puts the national interests of his own people at an absolute superiority over those of others.

For the last time...

FRS claimed he was not taking sides on the issue. Let me quote him specifically on this:

I don't apply anything to one side

My point has never been that FRS favours one side, that's a given. No surprises there and really if I had a go at everyone who had some bias on this forum I would never finish.

My point, and I don't know how to make this any clearer - FRS claimed that he wasn't being biased when be obviously was. FRS said he didn't apply anything to one side. Yet a read of his posts shows obvious favouritism to one side (which he then acknowledged while continuing to insist that he wasn't being one sided...?). FRS borrowed the language of moral equivilency and played at being unbiased precisely so he could bias the argument.

Perhaps the problem isn't that you guys are being dishonest in your presentation. That's giving too much credit. The problem is obviously that you both fail at basic logic and reading comprehension. This would readily explain how you two could make such phoney lookiing arguments, be completely passionate about your rubbish and completely fail to conceive of how someone else might think it totally fucking absurd. As such there is no point in repeating this or explaining this any further. I give up. You two can return to your inane games.

[Far-Right Sage]

Although you criticize reading comprehension, I believe you are beyond presumptuous in assuming to know the intent or meaning behind my statements better than I myself know them. I doubt many others familiar with my position took the statement "I don't apply anything to one side" as a declaration of neutrality in the struggle against Bolshevist encroachment; clearly it was not. My point was and it remains, that I have never morally condemned the Soviets nor have I denied German actions. I recognize the reality of the situation and as you yourself say, the notion that I wouldn't have an inherent preference or bias on the subject to begin with is laughable. You seem to be the only one who could read my comments in this discussion and indeed my initial remarks as anything but that, yet you somehow claim the effort was dishonest? I have stated and reiterated my position earnestly from the very beginning.

[Smilin' Dave]

Although you criticize reading comprehension, I believe you are beyond presumptuous in assuming to know the intent or meaning behind my statements better than I myself know them.

It defeats the purpose of participating in a public debate when someone needs further personal interpretation of basic terms just to make sense of your meaning. Are we perhaps to be issued with special FRS issue decoder rings to avoid future confusion from your 'creative' use of language?

You cannot say "anything" and then insist on there being an unspoken major exception. It would be like me saying I never argue with anyone, and then when called out, saying that obviously that didn't include all the times I have been argumentative.

My point was and it remains, that I have never morally condemned the Soviets nor have I denied German actions.

No instead you morally exalt one side while decrying those that morally condemn the same side for making moral judgements. You made a moral judgement and while insisting moral judgements were wrong, get it? Your argument was hypocritical and/or stupid no matter how you want to slice it.

yet you somehow claim the effort was dishonest?

I'm moving on from thinking you dishonest and now prefer to think of you as maladroit or incompetent. You aren't being nearly clever enough to pass as insincere.

[Far-Right Sage]

Once again, there was nothing whatsoever hypocritical about an argument you so clearly failed to understand. Your lack of comprehension of my statements and intent from the very beginning is no one's fault but your own. I have "exalted" those whom I sympathize with based upon ethnic loyalty and ideology, yes, while drawing attention to the actions of those whose cause and actions have been typically glorified by anti-fascists, Germanophobes, and the like. That you deem this a "moral condemnation" when it was not continues to be ridiculous. You don't need a special dictionary or guide for comprehension as I'm sure many, such as Andropov himself who created this particular discussion, understood it well.

Whether or not you continue to misinterpret the argument, I couldn't care less. I have responded thus far in reaction to your use of rude language, whereas perhaps I should not have risen to the bait.