beorio.bsky.social
Look at the bears in the banner. They are cute and in a tree.
799 posts
53 followers
100 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Oh fuck off “Leopold was unique too”. Fucking apologist! You people are demented beyond repair. It’s over. Muting all you freaks forever.
comment in response to
post
No it wasn’t the Nazis could have been opposed and crushed the minute they tried rearmament the allies where either apathetic or sympathetic to the Nazis which enabled their rise.
comment in response to
post
They were not uniquely evil they wanted to enact genocidal colonialism in Europe. The same kind of genocidal expansionism that wiped out millions in the colonial era. The portrayal of Nazism as uniquely evil is an attempt to separate centuries of European colonialism and antisemitism from nazism.
comment in response to
post
No I think the moral argument is morally meaningless because all sides involved where evil and committed mass atrocities throughout their existence before and after the war and there is nothing to be gained other than moral erosion in trying to rationalize any one as “good”.
comment in response to
post
No they didn’t on principle the drew the line when Hitler because a threat to their national sovereignty! Jesus fucking Christ!
comment in response to
post
How many untold millions died under British and French colonialism and the fallout of their collapse? Do you care? Do their lives matter to you? There was no meaningfully good guy side it was imperialist infighting and a failed communist state fighting a stupid war that could have easily never been.
comment in response to
post
They are comparable! He is directly responsible for those deaths because he willfully allowed the Nazis to expand unabated because he sympathized with them! Jesus fucking Christ you people are morally lost beyond recognition.
comment in response to
post
They were bad you demented shit I’m just not going to pretend the allies meaningfully opposed Nazi atrocities when they were imperial states that regularly engaged in genocidal colonialism. I have no reverence for any side they were all disgusting failure shit states.
comment in response to
post
I do actually because you freaks are determined to use nazism to sweep under the rug allied atrocities including those that enabled the nazis. Why are you defending chamberlain who spread Nazi Jewish conspiracies and let the Nazis rise to power!? The fuck is wrong with you!?
comment in response to
post
You’re a debate pervert freak who has no morals and will happily spout nazi apologism in defense of antisemites like Chamberlain.
comment in response to
post
The Nazis were worse. The distinction is morally meaningless because we’re talking about colonial empires that destroyed millions of live. Live you do not give one iota of a fuck about and you don’t give a shit about victims of the Nazis either otherwise you wouldn’t be defending Chamberlain.
comment in response to
post
He didn’t fight for something he was an antisemitic sack of shit who nearly destroyed the world. Just insane.
comment in response to
post
I think “worse” is meaningless when you’re dealing with colonial empires that destroy the lives of millions of people and kill thousands if not millions to preserve their illegitimate imperial claims. You do not value the lives of those who suffered under Allied colonialism at all.
comment in response to
post
Guy who accused anti appeasers of being Jewish communist really “stood up to Hitler”. You’re a demented worthless sociopath.
comment in response to
post
The allies had no need to do that they could have easily crushed Hitler the moment he started remilitarizing. Stop spouting revisionist propaganda to defend allied Nazi sympathies!
comment in response to
post
France and Britain were global colonialist states that regularly committed genocidal atrocities around the world you fucking freak!
comment in response to
post
Also can you please adress Neville Chamberlain and British conservatives promoting antisemitic anticommunist conspiracies just like the Nazis? Could you attempt to adress the thing that proves my point about Nazi sympathizers in allied leadership? Could you stop ignoring it you two faced shit!
comment in response to
post
Ok pure conjecture not based on anything so keep being a worthless nazi apologist subhuman.
comment in response to
post
That wasn’t what the Soviets did they split Poland gaining territory and buy time to organize their forces while the allies and Nazis fought eachother. The Allies simply let Hitler annex and militarize freely till he became a serious threat. These aren’t the same strategically.
comment in response to
post
“Your honor my client didn’t force anyone into anything they could have simply let themselves be beaten to death.”
comment in response to
post
“I can simply choose to sit and let the threat grow until I can no longer stop it. I wasn’t forced to contend with the monster I let grow unchecked. I’m not owned!” - Neville Chamberlain as he shank and transformed into a corn cob
comment in response to
post
Like do you think Hitler wasn’t going to attack the Allies also we have no idea either way. Molotov Ribbentrop could have happened even without Allies guaranteeing Poland. Hitler was a dug addled lunatic who fought a hopeless war on two fronts with the whole rest of the world.
comment in response to
post
🤪
comment in response to
post
Delusional Nazi propaganda.
comment in response to
post
You said they did not need to and that the Nazis were not a threat to the UK when I said they had to intervene in Poland because Hitler wouldn’t stop expanding. You’re straight up lying about what you said. Also it’s not good they only intervened when Hitler became a serious threat.
comment in response to
post
My guy there’s a character limit and I’m abbreviating for the sake of it but go further down your own delusional rabbit hole all you want bud.
comment in response to
post
You have actively defended appeasement and insinuated Hitler wasn’t a threat to the Allies and they would have been fine to continue appeasement and let Hitler conquer Poland unopposed. Ribbentrop happened because the Soviets had zero reason to fight Germany on the allies behalf.
comment in response to
post
“Why are being rude to people defending allied Nazi sympathizers you meanie beanie!”
comment in response to
post
MLK was a socialist. He did not implore moderates to embrace liberalism he condemned liberalism failure to address racial injustice and economic inequality. You are straight up presenting a revisionist history version of MLK that complete strips him of his more “radical” beliefs. Fuck off loser.
comment in response to
post
No that’s what conservatism is. Liberals are indirect enablers of fascism because as MLK said they’re more interested in preserving the order of the status quo rather than disrupting it to pursue social justice.
comment in response to
post
Liberals are the “white moderate” MLK was a socialist. It’s amazing you have the most propagandize intro to US history understanding of things yet accuse others of propaganda.
comment in response to
post
It wasn’t “liberals” who led the civil rights movement MLK explicitly condemned the complicity and apathy of the liberal moderate. It was ultimately through the authority and violent enforcement by the state that segregation was ended.
comment in response to
post
You have no principles whatsoever you just spout whatever dribble comes up in your shit brain. This has been truly fascinating.
comment in response to
post
You do so very much care about ethnic cleansing so much so you defended the “democracy” of the British/French empires and segregationist US.
comment in response to
post
My guy you cited a document on human rights that explicitly excludes women to say “who needs communism when we got this”.
comment in response to
post
That’s still infinitely better than European capitalist colonialism my guy. I don’t know what to tell you.
comment in response to
post
Like literally what point are you trying to make exactly? The Soviets failed they failed to live up to communist principles and inflicted great evils yes. That still makes them miles better than imperialist powers that have no principles and are just plain evil.
comment in response to
post
A group that at least tries to aspire to good principles but fails is better morally than a group that is willfully committed to upholding evil. Why do I have to explain this concept to people!?
comment in response to
post
“Soviets please go to war and throw your lives away to support the allies for no reason ultimately weakening yourselves and enabling these colonialist states to solidify their global dominance and crush communism in the cradle.”
comment in response to
post
No my point is the Soviets at least claimed to support the abolition of class and imperialism. The British and French did no such thing. The Soviets were flawed in practice the allies were simply wrong in principle.
comment in response to
post
“British and French colonialism isn’t a thing guys it didn’t happen. There’s totally a meaningful moral distinction between the genocidal ethno imperialism practiced by the British and French empires compared to the genocidal ethno imperialism of the Nazis.”
comment in response to
post
I didn’t say it was moral or good just the best option the Soviets had from their perspective. There was no reason to choose one side or the other and I’ve explained this so clearly but you freaks just dismiss British and French colonialism because you don’t give a shit.
comment in response to
post
Ok well millions of people where also dying under British and French colonialism but those people don’t count since the allies where the “good” guys always and not just largely imperialist actors doing imperialism and mucking up the world in the process.
comment in response to
post
Because Hitler was an insane freak who couldn’t be trusted and Neville and gang were dipshits for enabling him. The Nationalist bloc realized “wait Hitler would be a threat” and Neville was disgraced for undermining British Dominance and sympathizing with the Nazis.
comment in response to
post
Gonna kiss daddy Churchills cock as another million Indians starve oh yes British “democracy” so good mmmm.
comment in response to
post
Because it was in there national interest to crush the Germans when they became a direct threat you fucking moron I’ve explained this so many times holy shit!
comment in response to
post
Not the Norwegians the Brit’s and French who were the two most powerful imperial state at the time. Did you forget that part shit brain!? Did you lose your only brain cell for a minute there!
comment in response to
post
Communism is ideology that condemns racial and economic class you fucking dipshit!
comment in response to
post
No they had no reason to fight for the allies or the Germans. Why would you fight one enemy nation only to ultimately benefit another enemy nation? I’ve explained this so clearly to you blithering idiots. There was no meaningful material or ideological difference between the Nazis and Allies.