Good, then we both agree the source doesn’t support the “hundreds of thousands murdered in Poland” claim.
Lol, if you want to try and move the goalposts from my "murdered Poles" to your "in Poland", I can only say that's just childish. Do you think it's better if they died in Russia?
No, I really cannot pretend knowing more about defeating fascism in Europe that the nation which ultimately defeated fascism, at the IMMENSE cost of 25 million lives in the struggle against Nazism.
Hexbear incoming. "They helped defeat the nazis so the bottom line is we can't criticize them".
Imagine how we would look at the US if they had decided it was more profitable to just team up with the nazis instead
That’s a book on migrations and deportations, not a book on casualties, it doesn’t seem to support a claim of “hundreds of thousands murdered” which you made in your previous comment, could you please elaborate?
Again, you’re conflating murdered with deported
It most certainly includes direct casualty numbers as well, for Poland and many other conflicts.
Great, please name one of them that doesn’t imply complete occupation of Poland by Nazis
I just can’t envision an alternative reality
Well, I think that's the main issue here. Siding with the nazis, attacking Poland in the rear when they were fighting the nazis, committing horrible crimes against the Polish population and POWs ... You really, really cannot imagine not having to do even one of those
Well I'm not sure if that's from the book you suggested, but if it is I must say the language is a tad bit romanticized lol. Might I suggest better sources
I don't know if the other three chapters you suggested get any better but in your quote it only argues that collaborating with the nazis was "their only option" if you first agree to start from the premise that they checks notes* "just had to claim those territories" to which they "had a far better right"
Imagine if the UK or the US had allied with the nazis and attacked Western Europe in the back, out of fear and begging them for spoils... (as some politicians argued, I might add)?
I get that the book you want me to read claims, like the previous poster, that the only option Russia had was to secretly team up with the nazis and attack the Poles from the rear
But my question is not so much to repeat that but to support it with arguments
please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets
There were several alternatives, actually. But most of them would start with Russia not attacking them in the rear after they moved their troops west to fight off the nazis
can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high
Yeah sure, here's one that estimates between 250k and 1.5m (but which I believe also includes post-war)
But I presume that if you're the type that already convinced themselves that all these murdered Poles "must have deserved it" in one way or another, then that number probably couldn't be high enough anyway
If you're really interested, I can only keep recommending you read the article yourself. You'll find it explicitly states that said missiles and shells were fired by helicopters and UAV's.
But what do you need to have explained about it? How can this still be news to anyone?? Do you want to believe the Israeli airforce only shoots flowers and thank you notes?
The article states that the bombs were dropped over Gaza, not Israel. It also states that the airforce, in hindsight, feels they acted too careful out of fear for civilian casualties.
I've read some of the 'reasoning' from this OP in the past and I'm afraid the twist that "the Israelis just went and killed themselves" is mostly wishful thinking
Do you have anything to back this up? I've never felt The Guardian was using euphemisms